Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We live in a very volatile geopolitical era. A catastrophic war rages in the Middle East and has heightened regional tensions. We've seen the horrific taking of hostages by Hamas and we must use all possible diplomatic pathways to unequivocally call on the Israeli government to uphold the international rule of law, keep civilians safe and encourage all sides to agree to a permanent ceasefire. The war in Ukraine continues; after two years, Australia remains a steadfast ally of Ukraine in the face of needless Russian aggression. Australia has now contributed more than $1 billion in total assistance to Ukraine, including some $880 million in military support. And we continue to see increasingly belligerent and authoritarian behaviour from China in the South China Sea showing little regard for international norms. And then there is the threat from climate change, and I have an ongoing request for the government to release the Office of National Intelligence report in relation to Australia's exposure from a security point of view. That is a backdrop that we face.

The new money in the budget in relation to Defence—this is appropriation and so this is why we're here, to ask these questions. The new money allocated to Defence as part of this year's budget totals are some $5.7 billion. It is a huge part of our budget. It focuses on three priorities: the AUKUS submarines, surface warships, and long-range strike targeting and autonomous systems.

AUKUS is, at its core, a technology-sharing alliance between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It's also closely linked to the Inflation Reduction Act and to the focus on developing sovereign manufacturing capacity in the world's energy transition, especially for the UK, Australia and the US, and reducing that manufacturing reliance on China. It's essential, within this framework, that substantial opportunity flows to Australian industries and companies, especially the smaller ones that are traditionally squeezed out by larger, more well-known international companies.

I know there are many questions as to how Australian companies and workers can participate and contribute to our major defence projects and to our nation's national security. I note that as part of this year's budget allocation, there is some $165.7 million put aside to establish a defence industry development grant program. Its funding, according to the government, is to support Australian businesses, to increase their scale and competitiveness, and to respond to capability requirements required within the defence portfolio in the years ahead. This is a worthy aim, but all too often many businesses find the procurement pipeline inaccessible. I have businesses in Warringah that face these challenges, producing, for example, drones and microchips and other capabilities that Defence will need in the coming years. Ironically, all too often they are able to do business overseas more easily than they can in Australia, and that's wrong and should be fixed.

So my questions to the government and to the minister are: How will sovereign Australian businesses be defined in the eligibility criteria for the defence industry development grant program? At present, to be classified as an Australian business, an ABN will suffice. Will the defence industry development grant program require substantially more significant ties to Australia as evidence of being a genuinely Australian business to ensure that we don't have essentially overseas companies benefiting from the grant process? Also, how will Defence ensure Australian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, get their fair share of opportunities in bidding for the defence industry development grant program? A further question is: how will you, the government, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises like those I represent in Warringah, including DroneShield and Warringah Plastics, get the industrial uplift to genuinely partake in the defence technology and procurement pipelines that have let so many down to date.

Further, what key industries do you anticipate will benefit from the technology-sharing alliance of AUKUS? It's really important that the government comes out on the front foot and is specific about where those technology uplift areas will be. Finally, AUKUS includes very specific workforce parameters, particularly concerning security clearances and the use of engineers. It is likely to absorb many Australian-born engineers, because migrant engineers are excluded, so what workforce planning is currently being done by the minister to ensure we meet those requirements?

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

See this speech in context