Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Senator Ciccone supported the bill, stating it ensures Defence Housing Australia can meet AUKUS obligations without straining local housing markets. Ciccone highlighted that the model supports local builders through agreements in Rockingham and contributes to creating 20,000 jobs across the supply chain. Ciccone emphasised that the legislation balances national strategic interests with community needs.

Senator Shoebridge opposed the bill, arguing it diverts public funds to build housing for US troops rather than Australians in need. Shoebridge criticised the lack of costings and transparency, suggesting the bill facilitates a US nuclear submarine base in Perth that increases security risks. Shoebridge moved an amendment to reject the bill, citing concerns about funding sources and the prioritisation of foreign military interests.

Senator O'Sullivan supported the bill but warned that the lack of new housing development would exacerbate the severe housing shortage in Western Australia. O'Sullivan called for urgent investment in infrastructure and skills training to support the AUKUS workforce, noting that current planning is insufficient for the 2027 timeline. O'Sullivan urged both federal and state governments to accelerate land development and infrastructure projects.

Senator Whiteaker supported the bill, explaining it modernises Defence Housing Australia to meet operational needs for AUKUS and other defence initiatives. Whiteaker noted that DHA has signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West to reduce pressure on local markets. Whiteaker argued the bill supports personnel wellbeing and operational readiness while complementing broader national housing strategies.

Senator Roberts supported the bill but highlighted failures in Defence Housing Australia's care for Australian personnel, citing cases of mould infestations and administrative abuse. Roberts read a letter from a former pilot detailing mistreatment by Defence leadership, arguing that sovereignty and defence capability depend on valuing service members. Roberts stated One Nation supports the bill because Australia cannot defend itself without allies.

Senator Bragg supported the bill but criticised the government's broader housing policy as incoherent and ineffective, noting a decline in housing completions. Bragg argued that demand-side measures like the Home Guarantee Scheme expansion are misguided and that the government should focus on supply-side reforms. Bragg welcomed the bill but emphasised the need for credible solutions to the housing crisis.

Senator Pocock opposed the bill, arguing it prioritises housing for US troops over Australians on public housing waitlists. Pocock criticised AUKUS as a flawed deal that increases costs and risks without guaranteeing submarine delivery. Pocock called for structural reforms to the housing market and an end to AUKUS, urging investment in public housing for essential workers and vulnerable communities.

Senator Brockman supported the bill but described the government's approach as too little and too late, citing inadequate infrastructure planning in Western Australia. Brockman highlighted dangerous road conditions and delays in preparing for the 2027 arrival of US personnel. Brockman argued that both federal and state Labor governments have failed to lay the necessary building blocks for AUKUS success.

Hanson-Young criticised the government for approving the destruction of ancient woodlands at Lee Point in the Northern Territory, which she claimed was done illegally and without Indigenous consent. Hanson-Young highlighted the impact on endangered species like the Gouldian finch and noted that court cases were ongoing regarding the project's legality. Hanson-Young urged ministers to withdraw approval for the housing project and stop bulldozing activities immediately.

Steele-John argued that the bill prioritised housing for US troops under AUKUS while Australians faced a severe housing crisis, with thousands on public housing waitlists. Steele-John cited statistics showing rising rents in Perth and a lack of social housing stock compared to other nations. Steele-John condemned the legislation as a transfer of defence policy to the United States and called for investment in domestic healthcare and housing supports instead.

Shoebridge moved an amendment noting that the explanatory memorandum claimed the bill had no financial impact. Shoebridge sought to highlight the discrepancy between the stated lack of cost and the significant expenditure required for housing foreign personnel.

Lambie moved an amendment calling for priority access to Defence Housing for Australian defence members and their families over foreign personnel. Lambie also demanded that full costs of housing foreign entities be recovered from those governments rather than subsidised by taxpayers, and required improved transparency through published data on allocations and waiting times.