Parliamentary Updates

2 June 2026

This budget commits Australia to record levels of defence expenditure, including an additional $14 billion over four years and some $53 billion over the decade. Defence spending will reach more than $425 billion over 10 years. Accountability in defence spending must also include accountability in decisions by Defence, especially around its decisions on critical capabilities and managing defence assets.

This is a live issue in Warringah, where Defence proposes to partially divest HMAS Penguin. Following its Defence estate audit, the government has determined that some capabilities of HMAS Penguin are critical and will remain onsite, including the clearance divers unit and the underwater medical unit. However, the government has also determined that other capabilities are noncritical and may be relocated, which has led to the proposed partial divestment of parts of the site, including the remnant bushland.

Along with my community, I strongly oppose this decision to partially divest HMAS Penguin. I've submitted freedom-of-information requests to seek the evidence behind this proposal, including the cost-benefit assessment used to justify relocating so-called noncritical capabilities and partially divesting the site. To date, there has been no clear explanation of what is proposed to be divested. Is it the remnant bushland? Is it parts of the built environment? What buildings would be affected, what are their maintenance costs, and what assessment has been done to ensure they do not fall into disrepair?

My questions to the minister are: Will the government release the cost-benefit analysis behind the proposed relocation of noncritical capabilities and partial divestment of HMAS Penguin? Will the government release the environmental, cultural, heritage and capability assessments underpinning this decision? Will the minister clearly identify which parts of HMAS Penguin are proposed for partial divestment, including whether remnant bushland or significant buildings are included? Will the minister guarantee that public interest will be prioritised, that the remnant bushland will be protected for conservation and that any buildings will not be sold for private commercial development? Will the minister guarantee my community that this important public asset will not simply be sold off into private ownership?

The UK intelligence agencies recently released a report that found all critical ecosystems were on a pathway to collapse. Will the Australian government release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence's climate risk assessment and properly recognise climate change as a core national security threat? Will Defence release any advice in relation to national security and capability assessment that it has provided the government in relation to climate risk and its impact on our national security?

National security does not begin and end with military spending. The government continues to take a myopic view of security by committing hundreds of billions to defence while leaving climate resilience severely underfunded. Security experts consistently identify climate change as one of the greatest threats to Australia's long-term stability. The government's own national climate risk assessment highlighted the seriousness of the risks we face, yet just $117 million was allocated to climate adaptation and disaster resilience, with most of it going to emergency response. Climate resilience is a national security issue, and, if we fail to invest now, Australians will pay far more later and will not be safe—no matter how many submarines you buy.

Finally, as discussed during the MPI today, Australians are entitled to much more clarity when it comes to the AUKUS agreement. The public has no confidence that there is going to be any value for money to the Australian people. Despite billions of dollars being transferred, as yet there is no guarantee that anything will be delivered to the Australian people. So I again ask the government: Will the government provide full transparency on any changes to the AUKUS pathway, including cost, delivery risk and sovereignty implications? What guarantee can the government provide that Australia will not face a submarine capability gap after the Collins class submarines retire in 2040, particularly if US shipbuilding capacity does not increase or a future US administration decides not to transfer the promised submarines? With more than $10 billion transferred to date, and much more being committed into the future, the Australian public deserves to know what guarantees Defence and the Australian government can provide that the capability will be available.