Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025; In Committee

Opened the debate

Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing it lacked transparency regarding funding and legal authority for housing foreign troops. Shoebridge questioned whether Defence Housing Australia had lawful basis for existing contracts and raised concerns about secret cost-sharing arrangements under AUKUS. Shoebridge moved amendments to remove provisions allowing housing for foreign military personnel and defence contractors. Shoebridge also highlighted the contrast between funding foreign housing and the domestic public housing crisis.

Government response

McAllister supported the bill, describing it as a narrow legislative change to expand Defence Housing Australia's capacity. McAllister stated that specific budgetary and operational details were matters for estimates rather than this debate. McAllister confirmed that housing for US and UK personnel was part of broader workforce planning and subject to ongoing cost-sharing negotiations. McAllister assured senators that security vetting processes were rigorous and that environmental compliance was expected.

Opposition response

Price questioned the government on security risks associated with housing foreign officials and the adequacy of defence spending. Price raised concerns about intelligence threats to defence facilities and asked for guarantees on vetting processes. Price also queried whether the government would commit to increasing defence spending to three per cent of GDP. Price sought confirmation that adequate housing was in place for arriving US personnel.