Melissa Price
Durack · Liberal Party · Australia
“That dream is born out of the pride they have in watching their current sporting heroes on the national and international stage created by major sporting events. I turn now to the legislation before us, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014.”
“However, whilst some may claim that it might create efficiencies, it does so by trading off on transparency. Members of parliament will only see the decisions once they are law. This debate is not whether indicia or images should be protected or not, because they already are, and, of course, we all agree they should be protected.”
“These include the 2020 Women's T20 World Cup, the 2022 Men's T20 World Cup and the record-breaking 2023 Women's World Cup. There are also other major events in the future to be recognised by this act, such as the 2027 Rugby World Cup, the 2028 Men's T20 World Cup and the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”
“When our athletes wear the green and gold, they carry millions of Australians with them literally on their back. The merchandise worn in stadiums, around the world and in schoolyards are symbols of aspiration and of national pride.”
“In Senate estimates, Australian Sports Commission CEO, Kieren Perkins—another superstar—confirmed that circa 2,000 athletes currently receive direct athlete support. However, they have no certainty that their scholarships will continue beyond today.”
“Instead of backing grassroots sport, Labor is more interested in protecting their bottom line and creating more uncertainty for the organisations delivering these programs. The coalition supports the protection of indicia and images for major sporting events.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for Melissa Price, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“The Business Council of Australia, who I note got a good shout-out from the Prime Minister during question time yesterday, has warned that 'without significant changes to this bill we risk embedding a system that's even slower and more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment'. That is a damning verdict, demonstrating that this legislation is riddled with problems. It paints a very grim picture for jobs, investment and productivity in our country. Let's start with the so-called 'unacceptable impact' provisions. There are eight pages outlining 37 separate definitions which would limit the number of projects that could proceed. Industry has been crystal clear: these definitions must be removed from the legislation and placed into the environmental standards.”
“As a result, we saw an embarrassing series of headlines—the reforms would be introduced in the Senate, and then they wouldn't be introduced in the Senate—which eventually concluded with the plan being quietly abandoned. The Prime Minister decided these reforms should wait until after the election so as not to risk seats, particularly across Western Australia. Following the election he decided it was time for a new minister who might be able to deliver some sensible reform. Unfortunately, we struck out again, and this new minister has now sought to introduce a 1,500-page monstrosity that business, industry and stakeholders right across the board have described as unworkable.”
“During their last term, the then environment minister, Minister Plibersek, promised time and again that Labor's full EPBC overhaul would be delivered by the end of 2023, but those deadlines came and went. The reform was deferred, delayed, watered down and, ultimately, shelved. Even Labor's own state premiers had lost faith. Of course I reference my home state of Western Australia. WA Labor Premier Roger Cook was so concerned with the economic impact of Minister Plibersek's so-called nature-positive laws that he called the Prime Minister to overrule her. He told the Prime Minister directly, apparently, that the reforms would destroy confidence in the resources sector. Well, they are true words.”
“It's worth reflecting on how we got here. The process began when the then environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition, commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake a review of the EPBC Act. Following the review, the coalition government introduced legislation to undertake reforms that would have improved the system, but, unfortunately, the Labor Party teamed up with their bedfellows, the Greens political party, to block it. Now, a few years later, Labor has returned to parliament with its own version, one which is more complex, more bureaucratic and more hostile to business than the 26-year-old system it's seeking to replace. This isn't their first attempt to.”
“That is why I say this: we will not support reform that puts ideology ahead of practicality. We will not support measures that threaten Australian jobs, deter investment or weaken our productivity. Let me be 100 per cent clear on this: not all mining projects—or, for that matter, renewable energy projects—will get environmental approval, and nor should they. That's because not all projects will be able to demonstrate their ability to coexist, without undue damage, with the environment. What project proponents need is a quick no or a quick yes to their environmental approvals. That's not what these bills will do. We will therefore not be supporting this package of bills, as they are about centralising control in Canberra, expanding bureaucracy and stifling the very industries that underpin our national prosperity.”
“I see the Ningaloo Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world, home to whale sharks, turtles and coral that Australians and visitors travel halfway across the globe to experience. I take great joy in seeing the red earth of the Pilbara and the Kimberley, a landscape that tells the story of the continent's ancient history, its strength and its spirit. But I also see the farms, the stations and the mines, which are the heartbeat of the Australian economy—the producers, the pastoralists and the workers who get up before dawn to grow our food and export our resources and who help to keep our lights on. These industries sustain local communities, they underpin our national prosperity, and they provide the royalties and the tax revenue that fund our hospitals, our schools and, indeed, our environmental protections.”
“I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's environmental reform package—the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills—which demonstrates Labor's latest attempt to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Let me be clear from the outset: I care very deeply about our environment. I represent more than 1.4 million square kilometres, the largest electorate in Australia. When you cover that kind of ground, you see our country in a way that few others do—that few others will truly appreciate. And I'll tell you what I see when I look out the window of those little—and also those large—planes as I traverse Durack. I see thousands of kilometres of coastline—pristine, rugged and breathtaking.”
“I was very happy to run into three young people who had just joined the Navy, one through the gap year program and two through the standard enlistment process. I will conclude by saying that it is my hope that this new committee will help parliament's oversight of defence so that we can better understand what those young people need in order for us to defend our country. Again, this committee must be about strengthening Australia's defence, not weakening the conventions that protect it. It must help build a defence force that is properly funded, properly equipped and properly supported, one that can deter aggression, defend our sovereignty and protect the freedoms that generations of Australians have fought and died to secure. That is the standard the coalition will uphold and that is the test by which this government will be judged.”
“We recognise that obtaining nuclear submarines is not a cheap exercise. It requires a genuine increase in defence spending. Yesterday, I was very lucky to secure leave from this place to be able to attend the IndoPac in Sydney. Inside the exhibition hall were hundreds of Australian defence industry companies. They represent the potential for Australia's defence capability going forward. It was a clear view from the many groups that I talked to that if you aren't involved in submarines, you are unlikely to get any form of financial assistance or contract from the current federal government. AUKUS cannot come at the expense of the rest of our defence capability needs. Also at IndoPac yesterday, I was delighted to visit the first Navy Life Expo, which was designed to attract new recruits to the service.”
“Unlike the approach of the Greens, we recognise that, when you have a neighbour that is engaging in the largest military build-up since the Second World War without strategic assurance, it is not an escalation to invest in your own capabilities. That is why the coalition is committed to a credible, costed pathway to spend three per cent on defence. This target reflects the gravity of the strategic moment that we currently find ourselves in. We cannot prepare for tomorrow on yesterday's budget. On that, I'll turn to AUKUS. Obtaining conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS remains the most ambitious defence and industrial partnership in our nation's history. It will transform not just our Navy but our economy, our workforce and our place in the world.”
“Russia's invasion of Ukraine shattered any illusion that interstate war in Europe was a relic of the past. China's behaviour in the South China Sea challenges freedom of navigation and projects power into the Indo-Pacific. Iran and its proxies fuel instability from Yemen to Lebanon and Gaza, with the atrocities of 7 October 2023 being the worst massacre of Jewish lives since the Holocaust. We have recently seen the influence of this wicked regime in Australia, with attacks on our own Jewish community, resulting in the undermining of our social cohesion. North Korea keeps advancing its nuclear and missile programs. Cyberattacks, disinformation and economic coercion blur the line between peace and conflict. The coalition understands the situation we are in at the moment and that what is required right now is peace through strength.”
“In the 2018 Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report called Contestability and consensus : a bipartis an approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence , the late Jim Molan wrote: Defence is one of the most important priorities of any national government. Greater bipartisanship on defence, reached through debate and contest on this new committee, will help to produce better policy outcomes to develop the capability Australia needs to defend ourselves into the future. We are debating this bill at a time when Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. As I outlined last week in a keynote address at the 4th KAS Australia and the Pacific Security Conference, the rules based order is being tested across multiple fronts.”
“I use the Greens as an example, but they aren't the only anti-AUKUS, anti-Defence representatives in this place, so I again stress that membership should be limited to only government and opposition parties. I want to reflect on how we got to this moment. This idea builds on the work of coalition senators and members over a long period of time—people like the late Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett—who each recognised that effective parliamentary engagement with Defence is essential to good policy. Major General Jim Molan in particular devoted much of his time in this parliament to improving the way that elected representatives understand and scrutinise Defence.”
“WA Greens senator Jordan Steele-John described the memorials as 'not politically neutral spaces' and suggested that the vandalism—which is a crime, by the way—was a valid form of free speech. Over 103,000 Australians have died in war, protecting this nation. The Australian War Memorial is a monument to their sacrifice, which provided us with the very freedom to hold elections and be elected to this place. For the Greens to come into this place and excuse the vandalism of our memorials, our sacred sites, is an absolute disgrace that should not be forgotten. In light of the Greens' extreme views, the Prime Minister should have no trouble in ruling out a member of the Greens from sitting on this committee.”
“The Greens' defence policy fundamentally diverges from what is required in the current strategic environment. In this context, entrusting them with a committee whose purpose is to enhance parliamentary oversight of key defence decisions would risk diluting the bipartisan consensus required on capability, readiness and deterrence. This would not be in the national interest. Also, beyond policy positions, there is a demonstrated lack of alignment with respect to Australia's service personnel and commemorative traditions. When the Australian War Memorial was defaced with politically-charged graffiti, the Greens leadership at the time declined to unequivocally condemn the desecration.”
“For doubters of this approach, let's consider what would happen if a member of the Greens political party were included on this committee. Let's consider what their goals might be if they were a part of the membership of this important committee. This is a party that took to the last election a policy to cut defence spending, cancel AUKUS and end our alliance with the United States. They also have on their website that the decisions made by the Liberal and Labor parties have escalated tensions with our neighbours. You see, in their view, the acquisition of nuclear submarines and other capabilities, which are designed to protect Australia, don't contribute to deterrence but instead make conflict more likely. It is their view that Australia would be in a stronger position if we had fewer alliances and a weaker arsenal.”
“This is a hard truth that must be confronted, and this reality demands seriousness in all that we do—seriousness in our policy, in our spending and in how this parliament exercises its responsibilities. This bill can contribute to that, provided it is implemented in the right spirit. I'll begin by commenting on the composition of this committee, and I make no apologies for supporting the member for Hume's amendment, which explicitly calls for the membership of the new joint committee to be limited to members of the opposition and the government parties of the day. This is a proven model which is already in place with respect to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and has been the convention for more than two decades.”
“I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This is an important piece of legislation. It seeks to entrench parliamentary oversight of defence through a new joint committee, a structure that, if implemented with discipline and respect for convention, can strengthen accountability, transparency and public confidence in the way we defend our nation. The coalition supports the principle of this bill, but with an important caveat: the committee this bill creates must remain bipartisan, serious and focused on the national interest. Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War.”
“It's another example of this government's contempt for parliamentary process. So much for transparency! What is Labor scared of? That is what you've got to ask yourself. Labor came into power promising integrity. They spoke of sunlight as the best disinfectant, yet under this government we've seen non-disclosure agreements, secret costings, hidden estimates manuals and, now, legislation designed to make it harder for Australians to see what their government is doing. I've been in government for 10 years. We don't always like the scrutiny, but it's important for our democracy. This bill damages public trust. It tells citizens that the government—”
“Every major integrity body, transparency advocate and media organisation has condemned this bill, and so they should. Not one of them supports it. The only supporters, of course, are the bureaucrats who would rather not be questioned. They're cheering from the sidelines. This is not just poor policy; it is procedural abuse. Yet, here we are, being forced to consider it before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has even reported. They've been working hard on this very issue. Their report is due on 3 December. What's the rush? Why can't we wait until that report is finished so that we can look at the recommendations? We could all look at the recommendations. The report is due on 3 December. The government's decision to rush debate now, before the committee has finished its work, is a disgrace.”
“This bill was introduced without consultation and rushed into the parliament despite the findings of the 2023 Senate FOI inquiry, which made it clear that the real problems are under-resourcing, delays and cultural resistance within agencies. Labor has clearly ignored those findings. Instead of fixing the system, they're breaking it even further. It takes a lot of talent! Let's be honest. This is not a reform born out of necessity. It is a reaction to scrutiny—a desire for less scrutiny. I can't believe I'm saying those words. I just cannot believe it. By banning anonymity, Labor silences whistleblowers and vulnerable applicants. By imposing the fees, they make transparency a privilege only for those who can afford it. By expanding exemptions, they ensure that the most politically sensitive information will stay hidden.”
“Schedule 7 expands cabinet and deliberative process exemptions, making it easier to refuse requests without even searching for one document. Schedule 8 allows a different minister or agency to respond if a minister leaves office. This bill moves freedom information from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. I'll say that again: it moves from a presumption of openness to a presumption of control. So much for transparency. Australians will only see the final announcements—never the debates, never the advice and never the disagreements that led to those decisions. The coalition opposes this bill because it undermines transparency, accountability and trust in government.”
“Schedule 1 rewrites the objects of the act to prioritise the proper functioning of government over the public's right to access information. Schedule 2 bans anonymous requests, ending protections for whistleblowers, advocates and citizens who fear reprisal. Schedule 3 introduces a discretionary 40-hour processing cap, allowing agencies to stop searching once the request just gets that little bit too difficult. Schedule 4 extends decision timeframes from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, delaying responses. Schedule 5 changes the Information Commissioner's review processes in a way that limits third-party participation. Schedule 6 creates application fees for freedom of information requests and reviews. This is effectively a truth tax on citizens seeking information.”
“The Labor government loves to talk about transparency. They promise openness, integrity and accountability. But with this Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 they have done the opposite. This bill is not about Freedom of Information; it is about freedom from scrutiny. It weakens the public's right to know, entrenches secrecy and reduces accountability of the federal government. It is the most significant roll-back of transparency laws in over 40 years. Labor tells us this bill will modernise the freedom of information framework and improve efficiency, but, when you look very closely, it becomes clear. What they really mean is to make it easier to say no—make it easier to encourage dysfunction and to encourage and reward incompetence. Let's look at what the bill actually does.”
“In my electorate, long-distance travel is not just a choice; it is a necessity. Cutting speed limits by 30 kilometres an hour will not fill a single pothole or strengthen a single bridge. Labor has slashed funding for regional roads, reducing the Commonwealth contribution for regional roads projects from 80 per cent to 50 per cent, ending the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program and abolishing the Roads of Strategic Importance Initiative. Regional Australians deserve investment, not more roadblocks from Canberra, and I urge everyone to have their say on the proposed changes. Submissions close 10 November. Your voice is important, let Labor know what you think.”
“The Albanese Labor government is once again proving how out of touch it is with regional Australia. Labor is seeking feedback on a proposed reduction of speed limits on regional roads from 100 kilometres an hour to 70 kilometres an hour. Let me be clear, this is not about road safety. It is not a road safety policy; it's a productivity killer, nothing more and nothing less. Across Durack from the Pilbara to the Kimberley, the mid-west and throughout the Gascoine going to the Wheatbelt, our roads are already deteriorating at an alarming rate. Instead of properly funding maintenance upgrades, Labor's answer is simply to slow everyone down. People in Durack are already battling rising costs. They don't need a city-centric policy that hurts local jobs and makes everyday life that little bit harder.”
“While large companies like BHP can offer subsidised housing to employees, many smaller businesses cannot, leaving workers and their families struggling to find affordable homes. This housing stress affects our young people's lives and their families' ability to meet basic needs like food, water and clothing. Port Hedland is the exporting powerhouse of Australia and is a major contributor to Australia's economy. Yet many young people here face barriers to a stable and secure life. We urge members of Parliament to take meaningful action to improve living conditions for young people in regional and remote areas like ours. Awesome speech, Heidi. Well done! You have now been heard.”
“Today I'd like to recognise Heidi, whose submission was Durack's chosen entry in this year's Raise Our Voice campaign. This is what Heidi wrote: My name is Heidi, and I'm writing on behalf of the Hedland Youth Advisory Council. We are a group of young leaders aged 15 to 20 who provide insight and advice on issues affecting young people in Hedland. To prepare this submission, we consulted with the young people of Hedland to identify the most pressing challenges in our community. The top concerns were better healthcare, reducing racism, and most significantly affordable and accessible housing. Housing is the issue that most directly impacts our daily lives. As a young person, I've seen my own family forced to move multiple times due to rising rental costs.”
“But, of course, it's not just households feeling the pinch. So is industry. As we know, Tomago, the largest aluminium smelter in Australia, confirmed last week they are consulting with their thousand workers over their future beyond 2028 due to soaring power costs. Another bailout is now being proposed. It would be the fourth of the year, following Whyalla, Glencore and Nyrstar. Most egregious, though, is the claim that it is Australian-made technology that is driving energy security. So, to summarise, we have inflation rising, with Australians struggling to afford their bills, we have Australian heavy industry on the brink and we are increasingly reliant on foreign imports to power our economy. To me, that does not sound like Labor is delivering for Australia. It is definitely not our future made in Australia.”
“Carrying a solar panel into the main chamber, the member for Hasluck said: Under Labor we are delivering cleaner, cheaper, Australian made energy, built by Aussie workers and backed by Aussie resources, powering our economy now and into the future. That sounds really good doesn't it? Nothing the member for Hasluck said in that statement is true. We haven't suddenly become cleaner under Labor's watch. Australia's emissions have barely dipped since Labor took office. They remain at 28 per cent below 2005 levels, which is exactly where they were when the coalition left office in 2022. Energy certainly isn't cheaper under Labor, with electricity costs going through the roof. Households have seen a 23.6 per cent rise over the past 12 months, which, as we have all seen, has pushed inflation once again outside the RBA's target band.”
“They've warned that reforms that don't strike the right balance will mean we won't get the critical minerals projects that are vital to Australia's future prosperity. There is a real irony here that, in the name of environmental protection, we will export these opportunities to countries who, quite frankly, couldn't care less about our environment. Does anyone really believe losing those opportunities here in Australia to China will benefit us or, indeed, our environment? Unfortunately, I expect the answer from those opposite is probably yes. You only have to look at the antics of the member for Hasluck last week in this place to see that.”
“Importantly for Western Australians, who are right at the forefront of this agreement, there is still no clear plan on how this framework will translate into new processing facilities, new regional jobs—that's pretty important to the people in Durack—or new investment certainty for local industry. In fact, many in the sector say that the biggest obstacle to developing Australia's critical minerals capability is our government's own red tape. It took just two days following the signing of the deal for a big dark cloud in the form of the government's extreme nature-positive laws to jeopardise this agreement. Despite the rebrand of the proposed environmental laws, the Business Council of Australia has identified several critical areas where the legislation should be amended.”
“Ensuring the resilience of these supply chains is not just an environmental or economic imperative; it's a national security imperative also. While we have seen out of APEC President Xi agree to lift export controls on rare earths to the United States, it is clear that the Chinese stranglehold on critical minerals and rare earths processing cannot continue. Australia has the resources the world needs, and there is a real chance for us to capture the full value of these resources right here at home. This shouldn't just be limited to the US, though. It should also extend to our European partners, particularly given the increased NATO investment in defence we've seen just recently. What matters though is not the announcement but the execution, and this is where the opposition has real concerns.”
“I rise to speak on the motion from the member of Spence regarding the signing of the United States-Australia framework for securing the supply of critical minerals and rare earths. There is no question that this agreement represents an important moment in the deep and enduring friendship between Australia and the United States. For more than 70 years our alliance has been the bedrock of Australia's security. Whether through ANZUS, the Five Eyes partnership or more recently AUKUS, the United States has stood with Australia in promoting peace, stability and prosperity in our region. This new critical mineral framework continues that tradition. Critical minerals and rare earths are the building blocks of the modern economy. They are essential to the technologies that underpin both our national security and our economic security.”
“Honestly, regional Western Australian councils are on their knees, trying to keep their local doctors in town, and all that minister can do is say to somebody else, 'Just send her some basic sort of letter that really says nothing.' Well, we deserve better than that, Mr Mark Butler. It's just not good enough. Local governments should not have to become the healthcare providers because Labor has failed to deliver the incentives needed to attract and retain doctors in regional and remote Western Australia. The people of Durack deserve much better, Minister Butler.”
“Sadly, the same story of neglect is playing out in health care across Durack. Ratepayers are being forced to pay twice for the privilege of seeing a doctor: firstly, when they go to see the doctor; and again through their local rates. Communities such as Northampton, Dongara and Meekatharra are digging into their own buckets just to keep their doctor in town. I recently wrote to Minister Mark Butler, our health minister, asking that regional Western Australian councils receive some financial support for the cost of keeping their local doctor. I received a very brief response—I received a letter. I didn't get a letter from the minister, though; I got a letter from one of his team members.”
“It has hit the elderly, small-business owners and those of limited digital access the hardest.' The closure will also have negative economic consequences as locals are forced to bank elsewhere and will inevitably spend their money in those other towns. This hurts Cunderdin's long-term sustainability and erodes community confidence. Bendigo Bank, to their credit, stepped in after the withdrawal of Westpac from Cunderdin, promising it would not abandon Cunderdin as the big banks had done, yet here we are again: another regional town is being left behind. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence, and while the Senate inquiry into regional bank closures did make clear, practical recommendations to protect access to financial services, the Albanese government has still not responded. I ask why: why have they not responded?”
“In regional Western Australia communities are being hollowed out one essential service at a time. Whether it is losing their last bank or struggling to keep a doctor in town, locals are being left to fend for themselves as services disappear and costs rise. I've received an email from the CEO of the Shire of Cunderdin, Mr Stuart Hobley, following Bendigo Bank's announcement that it would close its Cunderdin agency. Sadly, that closure went ahead last week. Cunderdin is now without a single bank in the entire shire, meaning residents must travel more than 120 kilometres to Northam and back to access simple, basic banking services. Mr Hobley wrote: 'The decision came without consultation, and has left the community deeply concerned.”
“My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On Tuesday, the minister made a commitment to Australia's heavy industry saying, 'I can guarantee that we will ensure that energy policy is designed to ensure the supply of cheap and reliable energy.' But today the CEO of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA warned that electricity costs are on 'an unsustainable trajectory, preventing expansion activities in a region that is experiencing booming interest in both gold and critical minerals.' Minister, is this really what a future in Australia looks like?”
“Just four days before Cyclone Zelia struck, the Prime Minister stood here in this parliament and spoke about closing the gap, promising 'the building blocks of a good life'—that's what he said: 'the building blocks of a good life'—to communities cut off for far too long. Well, how can this government be serious about closing the gap when it is underfunding the very lifeline roads that connect the Western Desert communities to clinics, schools, food and fuel? This week I was informed of serious incidents on the Punmu Access Road—a teacher's vehicle rolling over several times, tyres blown and bearings collapsed. People are lucky to be alive. This is unacceptable. The Pilbara is the engine room of the Australian economy. It's time this government started treating it like one. (Time expired)”
“In February, Cyclone Zelia devastated road networks in the Shire of East Pilbara. For eight months, the shire has worked incredibly hard and negotiated in good faith to secure funding, with $26 million required to rebuild 10 damaged roads, including vital access routes to the Western Desert communities. The response from the state and federal governments has been, frankly, insulting, with the current proposal totalling just $12 million. Instead of funding a like-for-like rebuild, they are prescribing a deliberate downgrade of roads that will fail once again when the next cyclone inevitably hits.”
“The coalition will always choose readiness over rhetoric and, under us, Henderson, AUKUS and the Australian Defence Force will have the funding, focus and future that they deserve.”
“In my short term back in the defence industry portfolio, I've also heard major concerns about progress on AUKUS Pillar II, and, because the government has failed to lift defence spending, AUKUS is cannibalising the rest of the defence budget—robbing Peter to pay Paul—and that's why the coalition has been clear: the government must set a credible, costed path to at least three per cent of GDP for defence. That is what it is going to take to deliver real capability, not just press releases. The coalition is committed to spending at least three per cent of GDP on defence, which will back our Defence Force with a budget, give our men and women in uniform what they need in order to defend our home, support our industry and also show urgency to make sure we keep Australia safe.”
“I note that, since this motion was drafted, the Prime Minster has been to Washington, and I welcome the confirmation from President Trump that AUKUS has survived his administration's review. AUKUS was a good deal when Prime Minister Morrison announced it in 2021, and in 2025 it remains a good deal. The fact that it has now endured two Australian prime ministers, four UK prime ministers and two US presidents is testament to that. But the reality is that AUKUS too has been underfunded from the start. The government has promised the most ambitious industrial build in our history without allocating the money to make it real. Key AUKUS decisions including the east coast base, the full Adelaide build schedule and the skills pipeline remain unfunded and unconfirmed.”
“During the last round of Senate estimates, Defence officials outlined that Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment we have seen since the Second World War. The threat of conflict breaking out in our region in the next decade is no longer a remote possibility. What we need is a government to be honest about these risks and to prepare us for what may lie ahead. I'm not chest-beating for conflict. I'm not being hawkish. But the truth is that reviews and multiple media announcements do not deter aggression. What deters aggression is readiness. What we need is peace through strength, and Australia has an important role to play in collective deterrence.”
“While we know the Prime Minister has promised this $12 billion towards the precinct's redevelopment, the total figure required, by his government's own admission, is likely to be $25 billion. The government can't even answer basic questions on when and over what period their commitment will be spent. But that's not all; the boundaries and the definition of the actual Henderson precinct haven't even been finalised, and the planning work won't be complete until 2027. It's nearly the end of 2025. Let's get a wriggle on! The reality is that, under Labor, Henderson is not being accelerated. Sadly, it's being delayed. Without real funding, we risk a shrinking navy, idle shipyards and lost AUKUS opportunities for the people of Western Australia. We risk losing skilled workers and investment at the very time we should be growing them.”
“It isn't just essential for our sovereign capability and the future of AUKUS. It also represents a massive economic opportunity for my home state of Western Australia, with the potential to create over 10,000 skilled jobs. Given the importance of this project, particularly to the AUKUS agreement, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and also the Premier of Western Australia finally put on their Austral hats and get down to Henderson and commit new money to the development of the precinct—four years too late, I would say, but better late than never! However, it quickly became apparent that this announcement was not reflective of a real plan to urgently move ahead.”
“I'll begin my contribution to this debate by congratulating the member for Hasluck for drafting this motion. You've got to give it to those opposite—when it comes to drafting motions and media releases, they've really got some talent. Unfortunately, that record for making announcements isn't matched by delivery. You had your go; thank you, Member for Hasluck. Nowhere is that clearer than in the much-lauded announcement of a $12 billion investment in the Henderson precinct. I want to be clear. The coalition supports the vision for Henderson. As a proud Western Australian, I am incredibly proud of Henderson and its shipbuilding industry. We support a sovereign industrial hub capable of continuous shipbuilding and the maintenance of our future nuclear powered submarines.”
“Pastoralists across Durack face enormous distances, unpredictable climates and limited infrastructure, yet they persevere through hard work, innovation and commitment to their land. The Perth Royal Show was a perfect setting for this launch, hosted by the inspiring Debbie Dowden, chair of the WA International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists. Debbie and her family operate Challa Station in the southern rangelands and are known for their leadership in land restoration and sustainable pastoral management. As we look towards 2026, I hope this international year will shine a light on the remarkable contribution of our pastoralists, our people, and inspire ongoing support for the regions that sustain us all.”
“Last week, at the Perth Royal Show, I had the pleasure of attending the Australasian launch of the United Nations International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, to be celebrated throughout 2026. It was wonderful to be there alongside our federal Liberal leader, Sussan Ley; my colleague Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor; and the WA Liberal leader, Basil Zempilas, to mark such an important occasion for regional Australia. This global initiative recognises the people who live and work across our vast rangelands—those who produce the food and fibre that sustain us, manage biodiversity and care for the fragile ecosystems that cover more than 85 per cent of Western Australia. For my electorate of Durack, this is deeply personal. Our rangelands are not on the fringe; they are central to our way of life, our economy and our future.”