Matter of Public Importance

Defence

House of Representatives · Tuesday 26 August 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on the adequacy of Australia's defence posture under the AUKUS agreement and the government's diplomatic engagement with the United States. Opposition members argued that defence spending at approximately two per cent of GDP was insufficient for the current strategic environment and criticised the Prime Minister's failure to meet the US President. Government members defended their record, citing record peacetime defence increases, tangible progress on submarine construction, and the creation of thousands of jobs. The discussion highlighted a sharp divide over whether the government was delivering on AUKUS commitments or neglecting essential capability upgrades.

Outcome

The matter of public importance was debated without a vote being taken.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Angus Taylor (Hume) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Taylor argued that the global strategic environment was the most dangerous since the Second World War, necessitating stronger alliances and higher defence spending. Taylor criticised the government for failing to secure a meeting between the Prime Minister and the US President, and for inadequate funding for AUKUS infrastructure, particularly at Henderson in Western Australia. Taylor contended that defence expenditure at roughly two per cent of GDP was insufficient and advocated for an increase to three per cent to ensure credible deterrence and support submarine capabilities.

Government response

Peter Khalil (Assistant Minister for Defence) ALP Wills

Khalil asserted that the government was actively delivering on AUKUS commitments through significant investments in capability, diplomacy, and defence industry. Khalil highlighted the Geelong treaty, workforce investments, and the selection of ASC and BAE Systems to build submarines in South Australia. Khalil defended the current spending levels as the largest peacetime increase in history, arguing that these measures strengthened collective deterrence and protected the liberal rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.

Opposition response

Melissa Price (Shadow Minister for Science; Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Liberal Durack

Price emphasised the critical importance of AUKUS for national security and Western Australia's naval capability. Price expressed concern that the government was failing to meet initial tests, such as housing for allied personnel and adequate funding for the Henderson precinct. Price argued that the lack of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the US President undermined Australia's position and called for a clear path to three per cent of GDP in defence spending to ensure the agreement's success.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Clutterham highlighted the generational economic and security benefits of AUKUS for South Australia, particularly the Osborne shipyard. Clutterham detailed the job creation potential, including thousands of direct shipyard roles and training academy positions. Clutterham argued that nuclear-powered submarines provided unmatched endurance and stealth, essential for deterring threats and ensuring safe sea routes for trade.
Andrew Wallace (Fisher) (Liberal National Party) LNP oppose

Wallace criticised the government for maintaining defence spending at around two per cent of GDP while claiming to face severe strategic challenges. Wallace argued that the government was diverting funds from the Army and Air Force to the submarine program without addressing broader capability gaps. Wallace cited NATO benchmarks and expert opinions to support the need for increased expenditure to meet ally expectations.
Lisa Chesters (Bendigo) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Chesters defended the government's defence manufacturing record, citing investments in the Bendigo Thales site and the StrikeMaster contract. Chesters contrasted this with the previous government's lack of policy detail, arguing that setting spending targets without specific plans was irresponsible. Chesters emphasised that AUKUS was delivering sovereign capability and secure jobs for future generations.
Michael McCormack (Riverina) (National Party) Nationals oppose

McCormack stressed the importance of personnel and regional defence presence, highlighting Wagga Wagga's unique military infrastructure. McCormack criticised the government for delays in delivering Bushmasters to Ukraine and for the Defence Minister's inability to secure meetings with US counterparts. McCormack argued for increased defence spending and vigilance in light of growing geopolitical tensions.
Matt Burnell (Spence) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Burnell outlined the government's record defence funding increases, including billions in new acquisitions and AUKUS investments. Burnell dismissed opposition criticism as lacking substance, noting the previous government's failure to provide detailed defence policy. Burnell emphasised that AUKUS was delivering tangible results, including job creation and enhanced security capabilities.
Barnaby Joyce (New England) (National Party) One Nation oppose

Joyce argued that Australia needed to become as strong as possible as quickly as possible to deter authoritarian regimes. Joyce highlighted the disparity in military capabilities between Australia and China, particularly in submarines and surface vessels. Joyce linked defence strength to a robust manufacturing base and criticised the government's diplomatic failures in engaging with US leadership.
Tania Lawrence (Hasluck) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Lawrence detailed the government's defence funding increases and the progress of AUKUS-related projects in Western Australia. Lawrence highlighted the qualification of Australian companies for the US supply chain and the establishment of skills centres. Lawrence contrasted the government's detailed strategy with the opposition's lack of policy specifics, asserting that current investments were securing Australia's future.

Opened by

Angus Taylor (Hume) (Liberal Party)

Liberal

Speeches

10 speeches, 7 other contributors

Topics

Budget & Economy Defence & AUKUS Environment & Water Foreign Affairs Jobs & Employment United States

Debate Economy Matter of Public Importance, 15 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Jobs & Employment
Debate Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee Bill Debate, 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Defence & AUKUS
Question Time House Question Time 20 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Defence & AUKUS
Question Time Senate Question Time 15 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Budget & Economy, Defence & AUKUS

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.