Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

Defence is a primary duty of government. In September 2022, as one of our first actions, the Albanese Labor government asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into international armed conflict. Of course, we do have oversight already through parliamentary debate and Senate estimates processes plus the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. However, that committee, chaired by my colleague the member for Bruce, judged that these processes are not sufficient. The committee saw a need for the parliament to be able to examine Defence projects and strategy in detail within a classified setting.

Recommendation 6 of the seven recommendations of the committee's report was for the establishment of a new, dedicated statutory committee focused on Defence, the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, which is of course the subject of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The coalition members of that committee supported the recommendation. Indeed, this isn't the first time the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee has made this very recommendation. In 2018, when the committee was chaired by Liberal Senator Jim Molan, the same recommendation was made. Senator Molan called it a 'sensible and critically important' reform and recommended that strategy should be its focus. I agree.

Fortunately, the new committee will indeed have a strategy on which to have its focus, because an overarching Defence strategic review was commissioned by the Albanese Labor government as one of its first actions when coming to power. The review by his Excellency, Professor the Hon. Stephen Smith and former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Sir Angus Houston was released in April 2023. The 2024 National Defence Strategy, based on the review, directs that the Australian Defence Force must adapt to meet contemporary threats—to shift from a balanced force to a focused force and to be more capable, more lethal and more integrated. The strategy is one of denial that envisages an ADF fulfilling five tasks: defence of Australia and our immediate region, deterrence through denial, protection of our trade connections, investment in our regional relationships and contribution to a rules based order. But to quote Jim Molan again:

Defence is not the province of the military alone—it is a whole of nation obligation led by the government.

… …    …

With effective oversight, the parliament and the nation would not have to rely on leaked, potentially sensitive, details to the media. Points of contention could be debated while maintaining the appropriate level of secrecy about sensitive programs. And, perhaps most importantly, such a parliamentary committee could assist in bringing the nation to a realisation of the relative importance of defence and security, compared with other demands on the nation's purse and attention.

I turn to the provisions of this bill and the powers of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on Defence. Clause 110ABB sets out the functions of the committee. These express functions go further than those held by the current Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Subclause (e) describes as a function 'to examine and be appraised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts'. Decisions to go to war will not be made by the parliament or by the committee. The power to commit our ADF to conflict will remain within the power of the government of the day. This is a constitutional power.

Recent examples of commitments of troops other than for peacekeeping operations are for Afghanistan in 2001 and the Second Gulf War in 2003. This committee provides a way for the parliament to afford appropriate scrutiny of the decisions taken by the government in relation to war and warlike operations. Governments may, moreover, decide to engage the committee prior to a commitment. Sometimes a commitment of troops is fairly unanimous in the parliament and in the community. But there have been other occasions when the commitment of troops has been a contested space. The commitment of forces by Prime Minister Howard in 2003 to Iraq is an example of a contested decision. In retrospect, much about that decision can be faulted, and it is hard to draw a line between that war and Australia's national interest. Labor voted against a motion in the House which supported the commitment of troops. Since that time, it has been broadly recognised that greater parliamentary scrutiny of Australia's military actions and preparedness is warranted from the point of view of allowing for better accountability in a parliamentary democracy and also because greater scrutiny can be expected to create an environment where better decisions are made, knowing that greater scrutiny will be applied.

The bill provides the proposed committee with a host of other important functions. Examining war under subclause (e) will be a rare action by the committee. Many members will come and go from the committee without ever having to inquire on that topic. Most of the functions of the defence committee relate to defence preparedness. The committee will review Defence agencies and their budgets, consider strategy documents and scrutinise capability development and acquisitions. On the subject of acquisitions, the Deputy Prime Minister and defence minister stated yesterday in an interview that Defence contracting is the space within government where you have the greatest exposure to the private sector. He was speaking with reference to the Thales matter that has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, where there were allegations of kickbacks for a contract. Defence contracts are always serious decisions and often involve huge amounts of money. They are the biggest single spends we see. The defence committee, under subclauses (a) and (c) of the bill, will be charged with reviewing expenditure and scrutinising acquisitions. This function will add to the necessary, robust processes that the Deputy Prime Minister and defence minister stated is essential to provide public confidence.

Other committees cannot fully fulfil this function. This month, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reported on the Defence major projects from 2021 through to 2023, including an examination of the Hunter-class frigate project. The recommendations make it clear that greater scrutiny and timely reporting are needed, but the public accounts and audit committee manage their work without the special access to classified information that the defence committee will have. Having held a security clearance in a past role, I can attest that anything classified is worth knowing. Being able to scrutinise whether our spending on defence will produce a national capability that can deter conflict and, when it's deployed, is able to win requires ongoing and consistent consideration and oversight.

Around ANZAC Day this year, I published an article on the Battle of Rabaul in 1942, which I've referred to in this place. I was driven to write on that battle for a number of reasons: the fact that it was a pivotal but largely forgotten defeat that set the stage for the attack on Darwin; my own interest, having served in the Army Reserve; my father's and grandfather's service; and also the fact that my husband grew up there. Over all of this, I felt that the Battle of Rabaul serves to remind us now, at this point in time and in this global environment, of the need for forward posture. Our interests extend far beyond our borders and mingle with the interests of our neighbours. Preparedness for conflict in today's world is built on cooperation and with a care that extends well north of Australia. The defence committee will play a role in ensuring that this is not forgotten or minimised and is reflected in our long-term decision-making.

The bill provides the committee with a number of other functions in relation to both preparedness and personnel. Subclause (d) covers matters relating to Defence personnel and veterans. Our preparedness always depends on our people, and the defence committee can be another way in which we ensure that each and every enlisted person has the best support in place to enable them to fulfil their duty and love their career. I'm particularly pleased to see that Veterans' Affairs is included, as the interests of our personnel after their service is complete needs to be an integral part of how we think about the ADF as a whole. The committee will also, under subclause (g), examine the reports of any relevant royal commission.

Australia has a really proud history of joint exercises with our neighbours and partners. Likewise, we are proud that Australia has been represented in every UN peacekeeping operation since the UN itself was established, and the committee could review these. Members may be surprised to learn that the ADF has over 20 operations and engagements currently deployed around the world. Examples include Operation Aslan, the Australia Defence Force contribution of personnel to the UN mission in South Sudan. Another is Operation Paladin, the ADF's support to the UN Truce Supervision Organisation, whose activities are spread across Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic. Also Operation Southern Discovery, which is the ADF's contribution to the Australian Antarctic Program. These operations and activities are essential to the furtherance of peace around the world and part of the way in which we, as a country, take part as good global citizens. They are also part of the way in which we train and prepare our ADF. The defence committee would have a role in reviewing the efficacy of these contributions.

This bill should be passed. The coalition members of the committee supported the recommendation to create this new committee, so it was disappointing to hear of their late opposition. I've read the member for Canning's odd justification for their position. The coalition want to amend the legislation to target and obviate a particular political party and particular independents. How does the member for Kennedy feel about this amendment? The member for Calare? The member for Monash? There is some collective memory in the walls of this place that the coalition would like to ban the Communist Party as well. Maybe they should add that to their amendment. The member for Canning should not come into this place with an amendment that he knows is undemocratic and merely political. The safeguards around the operation of this committee are such that it will operate within an environment congruent with that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The member for Canning knows this. He knows that committee well enough; he's on it, and he's chaired it. He knows full well that the provisions of section 28 of the Intelligence Services Act are being repeated here for this bill, and he needs to treat this bill with the seriousness it requires and support it.

The coalition spokesperson on defence, the member for Canning, actually understands the importance of the legislation because he has spoken in favour of it many times. In 2020, the member for Canning said, 'parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing' and, further, 'There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked'. Of course, the member was a member of a governing party then, which for nine years could have created this committee. The opposition talk a big game on defence matters, but are apparently a little lukewarm when it comes to actually improving our defence forces and the decisions with better scrutiny.

In any event, placing the word 'opposition' in legislation, even if it could be defined, is fraught. We know who the opposition parties are today, but we don't know the future. Perhaps after the election next year there will be a split of the Liberal Party, where we'll have a conservative party and a real liberal party will emerge. You are smiling at that, Mr Wolahan. You like that! One of those perhaps won't even support nuclear power. Perhaps the Nationals and the Liberals won't be in coalition anymore either. Prescribing which parties or mix of parliamentary members should be represented is undemocratic. The longstanding composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee has stood the test of time, and it works. The coalition knows this. The same composition is proposed in this bill for the defence committee. Dr Dominique Dalla-Pozza of ANU stated in 2020, in relation to the composure of the Intelligence and Security Committee, that in its formal terms, the IS Act sets up a committee that has the potential to be quite independent of government control. Dr Dalla-Pozza recognised that the way membership was constituted meant that the minor parties were not represented but also recognised the view that such membership meant that the recommendations of the committee to the executive were more likely, in this case, to be bipartisan, and more likely to have the support of the executive.

I began my speech with the Defence Strategic Review and the fact that we now need to adapt to meet contemporary threats, which involves shifting from a balanced force to a focused force—more capable, more lethal and more integrated. Integration is vital and it also betrays the fact that conflict is in a more complex space than it has ever been. Greater scrutiny needs to be part of ensuring that we are ready for the world as it is, and also for how it is changing. This committee, which many members have sought to create for some time, is now needed more than ever. The bill should be passed.

See this speech in context