Parliamentary Updates

7 October 2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Consideration in Detail

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (18:37): I start off by saying how disappointing it is to see that there has not been a minister here to hear the queries and concerns and actually respond, but I hope I'm proved wrong.

Climate disruption is not a distant environmental issue but an existential threat to our national and regional security. Our national security depends not just on traditional defence capabilities, on submarines and missiles, but increasingly on resilient communities, stable neighbours and shared regional strength. If we are to take national security seriously, we must integrate climate adaptation and resilience alongside traditional defence capabilities. Defence spending is rising rapidly, but that investment must be paired with equal ambition for adaptation to and prevention of the risks that climate disasters pose.

The Pacific Islands Forum has been clear. Climate change is the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and wellbeing of Pacific people. In the Pacific, entire communities are losing land to rising sea levels, coastal erosion and increasingly frequent and severe national disasters. If our neighbours are overwhelmed by climate impacts, Australia's security is at risk too. We will face population displacement, disrupted supply chains, humanitarian crises, growing instability and challenges to law and order in our near region.

The 2023 Defence Strategic Review recognised climate change as a national security issue—by damaging critical infrastructure, stretching ADF capacity and amplifying instability in the Indo-Pacific. The AUKUS submarine program is forecast to cost up to $368 billion over 30 years, yet we are allocating only $1 billion over five years to the Disaster Ready Fund to strengthen the resilience of communities facing escalating national disasters.

According to the 2025-26 Defence portfolio budget statement, total defence resourcing sits at around $61.1 billion this year, with an additional $57.6 billion to be invested over the coming decade. We've also seen a further $25 billion committed to new shipbuilding facilities in Western Australia and more than $1.7 billion for a fleet of underwater drones. Meanwhile, national resilience funding remains so small it is ridiculous. Only $200 million will flow this financial year from the Disaster Ready Fund. For context, Cyclone Alfred alone is expected to cost the taxpayer $13.5 billion in disaster support and recovery. While we spend tens of billions on deterrence and weaponry, we spend only a fraction of that on preventing foreseeable harm. The economic case for action is clear. Every dollar spent on prevention saves at least $11 in disaster recovery.

We must also note that there is no new funding for the Defence Net Zero Strategy or Defence Future Energy Strategy, which are both essential if the ADF is to operate in a changing environment. The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, made up of former senior defence, intelligence and foreign affairs officials, have warned that climate disruption is now the greatest and potentially most existential threat to Australian and global security. Given these realities, I would ask the Minister for Defence, if he were here: Will you commit to embedding climate risk as a core driver of the 2026 National Defence Strategy and to releasing a declassified version of the ONI report? Given defence resourcing sits at $61 billion this year and an extra $57.6 billion over the decade, what proportion of that funding will be dedicated to climate adaptation and resilience capabilities, including joint programs with Pacific partners? Finally, in light of the AUKUS program's projected $368 billion cost, what assurances can you provide that Australia will receive the promised submarine capability? When will we gain access to pillar 2 technology pathways, with clear pathways for Australian industry participation and technology sharing? Much was promised, nothing has been delivered and any request for detail is met with, 'Just simply, we do not know.' There is no information about pillar 2 and actually what will flow to Australian domestic sovereign capacity. In light of the Trump administration's 'America first' agenda, what contingencies are in place to safeguard Australia's access to pillar 2 technologies and those opportunities and protect our sovereign industrial capabilities? Why are there not further answers in light of the so significant amount of the Australian budget that is being spent on these programs?