Budget delivers $30 million for next stage of Henderson defence precinct works

DEFENCE BUDGET

Australia will push ahead with its plan to deliver the Henderson ship building precinct south of Perth with an initial $12 billion allocated in this year’s Federal Budget.

Tuesday night’s Budget includes an additional $30 million to kick start the design and construction of interim facilities for non-defence industry which will be displaced by the naval hub.

The consolidation plan will alter the current common usage complex to allow the Landing Craft Heavy build program to start.

It forms part of the 2026 National Defence Strategy and Integrated Investment Program that Defence Minister Richard Marles unveiled at the National Press Club last month.

It will be supported by a $14 billion investment in the immediate forward estimates and $53 billion across the next decade.

The Budget included an additional $6.8 billion over the next four years to implement the strategy.

While the Budget continued focus on Australia’s long-term naval capability with big ticket items – like the AUKUS nuclear‑powered submarines and Mogami class frigates – the strategy includes a greater push for autonomous and long-range strike capabilities, drawing on lessons from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The Budget also unveiled the rolling schedule for new assets to be operational.

It included the scheduled arrival of Australia’s 14th P-8A Poseidon sub hunter plane in May, a further three MC-55A Peregrines later this year and a fourth MQ-4C Triton in 2028.

It showed all major combatants, which includes seven Anzac class frigates, three Hobart class destroyers and six Collins class submarines, had all estimated to increase their deliverable days.

As would most of Australia’s air assets, with the MH-60R helicopter scheduled to increase 300 flying hours.

The investment to boost Australia’s security on home soil comes as international conflict weighs heavy on this year’s Budget following the oil shocks from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Defence Budget makes up 6.2 per cent of the Government’s total expenses - sitting at $52 billion but scheduled to lift 18.8 per cent to $61 billion by 2029-2030.

Australia spends 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence with Mr Marles arguing it would rise to 3 per cent in the early to mid-2030s.

The total portfolio with Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Submarine Agency and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Regulator will cost taxpayers $887 billion to 2035-36.

Mr Marles said in pre-budget interviews this week that defence was “very much front and centre” of the Government’s spending priorities.

“We’ve put an additional $117 billion over the planning decade into the Defence Budget,” he said.

“In our four years in government, we have literally done 12 times as much as what the Liberals did in their nine years in terms of increasing Defence spending.”

The Budget linked the funding to the Defence estate fire sale, consolidation of the Henderson precinct, and the development of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise.

However, details of the department’s sale of more than 60 assets weren’t disclosed in the Budget with the Government citing “commercial sensitivities” and the potential to jeopardise their negotiating power.

The Government has also prioritised investing in relationships in the Pacific region, including Defence’s implementation of the PukPuk Treaty.

The Defence Budget also lists $50.4 million for the continued work of the Office of the Special Investigator in their examination of war crimes alleged to have been committed by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan.

It also sets about improving Defence’s culture, through $16.6 million investment to launch an independent Inquiry into Military Sexual Violence in the Australian Defence Force from the middle of 2026.

The Albanese Government said it was “fundamental to achieving the Defence mission”.

The funding totals had been criticised by shadow minister James Paterson at his recent National Press Club address for a lack of transparency, insisting there was “no table, no detailed breakdown, no raw numbers”.