Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

():  I thank the member for Fisher for raising this important matter. The member's motion calls for a national security strategy. We last had a national security strategy under the Gillard government, and it went to much of what the member for Fisher seeks, such as objectives to protect and strengthen our sovereignty, to ensure a safe and resilient population, to secure our assets, infrastructure and institutions and to promote a favourable international environment and more. I'm happy to table that because, whilst the member for Fisher is not a new member, he clearly did not know that document existed. I think it's even more ironic that he is calling for a new national security strategy two years into the Albanese government, when the coalition governments of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison didn't bother. I note also that the member's motion presupposes that the Albanese government will be in office in 2027. I appreciate the member's confidence in that regard, whilst taking nothing for granted, of course, in Hasluck.

Going to the specifics of the motion, we can see that these are all in fact subjects of action by this government. In just two years the Albanese government has done more work and achieved more than the coalition government did in nine—and the member does know this. One of the first actions of the Albanese government was to engage the Hon. Stephen Smith and Sir Angus Houston to provide the government with the Defence Strategic Review, arguably the most important overarching document in the defence and security space since the 1986 Dibb report. The Defence Strategic Review will inform government policies across defence preparedness, capability and posture for the decades to come.

The 2024 National Defence Strategy is the first of the biennial strategies recommended by the DSR. It is wideranging, covering the strategic environment, strategy, structure, bases, investment, partnerships, industry, personnel and resourcing. In relation to international partnerships, I recently attended Exercise Pitch Black in Darwin, as a guest of the RAAF. Members should be aware that over 20 nations attended this, with over 140 aircraft, and our international partnerships in defence are truly a great asset.

The 2024 Defence Industry Development Strategy drills down into the defence industry needs to support our future security, including procurement, innovation, workforce and exports. The 2024 Integrated Investment Program outlines our capability investment priorities across land, sea and air as well as the space and cyber fields that the member refers to in his motion. So there is a certain sense in which the member's motion is about two years late.

The member's motion acknowledges the work of Senator Jim Molan in the defence sphere, and I add my thanks to the late senator. In the last sittings, the House voted to pass the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. That bill was passed without the vote of the member for Fisher. The coalition opposed the bill on spurious grounds, pretending that it was appropriate to gerrymander the membership of the committee in a way that was arguably both unconstitutional and undemocratic. The member and all of his colleagues know that the membership structure proposed in the legislation for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is the same as that for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The coalition are not complaining about that committee now and have not previously, so it is quite clear that they are in fact just playing silly games. I'm sure the member for Fisher, when he reflects on this, can be nothing but embarrassed. While he can't stop the member for Dickson from playing silly games with legislation, he knows we shouldn't see that done with legislation that goes to national security. Let's not beat around the bush: if the Liberals and the Nationals stood up and took national security seriously we could already have a joint committee on defence operating today. That committee would already be reviewing the strategies and documents I've referred to and already be starting to play its important role in helping to keep Australia safe. The fact that it is not done is down to the coalition dragging its feet.

We've reformed the oversight of the security agencies, and we'll continue that work. We have a minister for cybersecurity in cabinet. We've elevated the importance of critical minerals. We've invested more in border security than the opposition did, and we've done groundbreaking work in both AI and quantum. I welcome any motion in relation to national security, which is the first duty of any federal government. If, however, the member for Fisher wants to move motions like this one, he should first ensure his party isn't the one delaying action in this area. He should get his party to pass the JCOD bill without this ridiculous, spurious delay.

See this speech in context