Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

Parliamentary scrutiny is absolutely vital in ensuring the best decision-making and the most efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament—and, by extension, through us in this place, a more informed public, because that's part of our responsibility.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to the continued improvement of our national security laws. I can attest to that, having spent the last two years as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is to ensure that our agencies—our law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies—are best equipped to continue their work to keep Australians safe and to protect our way of life. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, the PJCD, established by the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, will inject greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight into the Defence portfolio, in line with the Albanese government's commitment to transparency and accountability. It is necessary to ensure that parliament can also examine the defence projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail and, of course, in a classified setting, where required, with the appropriate safeguards in place.

The Albanese Labor government takes these duties very seriously. We have heard previous speakers on this, like the member for Solomon, who spoke eloquently around the point of bipartisanship and the importance for a consensus around what are critically important national security issues for this nation. Let me just expand on this approach for a moment. What we mean by that is that it's not just agreeing on everything all the time; there is a contest of ideas. There are differences of views right across this place and in the other place—even within parties, as well. What we mean by a bipartisan approach is checking the partisan politics at the door when it comes to the work that we do. For example, in the intelligence and security committee—and I would hope in the parliamentary joint defence committee—we park partisan politics at the door and in good faith, after vigorous debate, analysis and engagement, seek to try to reach a consensus on what we consider to be critically important for the national interest in and around our national security. That is a really important approach. It means not playing politics with such important issues but, in a genuine, good faith effort, seeking to find the best possible set of recommendations, the best analysis and the best understanding of what is required for the government to put in place.

This approach is more crucial than ever, particularly in the challenging and complex strategic national security environment that we find ourselves in currently. The establishment of the PJCD implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Inquiry into International Armed Conflict Decision Making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence. That inquiry was initiated to deliver a commitment in the Australian Labor Party's national platform. The PJCD is modelled, as we've heard, on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, and will supersede and enhance the defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

As I mentioned, as chair of the PJCIS I'm very cognisant of the important role the PJCIS has always played in doing the necessary work, the extremely rigorous and methodical work—and bipartisan when necessary but certainly the work done in an atmosphere conducive to the national interest coming first and foremost, rather than partisan or temporary political gains, reaching consensus where it is possible in the national interest. That has meant the membership is by appointment, and the structure of the PJCIS has been agreed upon. The intelligence security committee, which the PJCD is modelled on, vigorously scrutinises bills and debates those bills as national security bills in a classified setting, mainly, and comes to agreed positions and recommendations. Then we write up, usually, a joint report that is bipartisan from all members, no matter what side of politics they are on.

The PJCD is modelled on the PJCIS structurally but also in the context of the manner in which it should go about doing the very critical and important national security work it will be tasked with doing. That is just as important as the elements in the bill—the structural elements, the foundational set-up of the PJCD. It is that understanding of the critical nature of the work that is being undertaken and the importance of members of that committee undertaking that work in good faith, regardless of what side we are on in politics. In a sense I'm making a case for not playing politics with very important matters, especially the matters that pertain to national security and the security of Australians.

Those opposite me would know that this type of good-faith arrangement, this type of effort, this bipartisanship—when it's possible—in the PJCIS makes us stronger and safer as a nation. With the PJCIS, which I chair, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, appoints the members of the committee, and will do so for the PJCD. They will be a majority of government members, and non-government members will make up the rest, from both houses of parliament. The arrangements for information handling are closely modelled on the PJCIS, and the committee proceedings will be conducted in private and appropriately secure settings—unless the minister has authorised public hearings to look at certain bills. This would be with the exception of the committee's consideration of the annual reports of defence agencies. That is to ensure that sensitive information can be adequately assessed and analysed by committee members.

Unfortunately, we still see the coalition, those opposite, not able to resist the temptation to play politics with the establishment of this very important defence committee. They are playing politics with Australia's national security. While we are focused squarely on keeping Australians safe, squarely on our national security, squarely on our national interest, they have decided to oppose this bill. I say to those opposite that I've seen this story before. They ran this argument with respect to the PJCIS increasing its numbers. The Prime Minister already has the power to appoint any member of parliament to the PJCIS; that is done in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition under the Intelligence Services Act, and, as I said, the PJCD will be modelled on the PJCIS. That is a longstanding process, and it will be no different for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence; that process will be the same. It's quite galling because previous inquiries have recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on defence; we've seen that in this place. The Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended, in 2018, the creation of a similar joint statutory committee. When the former government, the Morrison government—the coalition—responded to this recommendation in 2019, they disagreed with it, saying, 'There are already enough substantial parliamentary oversight measures in place for the Department of Defence.' Okay. So they knocked it back in 2019 on that inquiry's recommendation. When they were in government, they rejected the establishment of the PJCD. It is a committee that will allow for more scrutiny, so they are knocking back the need for more scrutiny. When they were in government, they dodged accountability, they reduced transparency and they rejected scrutiny—clearly, from their own statements.

Those opposite me engaged in grandstanding and used fearmongering about national security and defence. They do it all the time, but then they refuse to accept the recommendations that would actually improve both—provide transparency and accountability. Now they're back in opposition, and there's still this aversion to greater scrutiny by the parliament. I don't understand it except for the politics—again, playing politics with this. Where the former government was unwilling to take this up, this government—the Albanese Labor government—is actually acting on those long-standing recommendations and establishing this defence committee.

I would say those opposite would have to explain their position for themselves. It is not just disappointing but frankly, I think, irresponsible. Given the current strategic circumstances that we face, there is a critical need for a committee such as the PJCD, which can provide effective parliamentary scrutiny of Defence in a classified environment. Everyone agrees upon that and everyone has agreed upon that and then, at the eleventh hour, those opposite have decided to say no. We've been clear from the beginning as a government that this committee recommended it be modelled on the PJCIS and that's long enjoyed bipartisan support. It's particularly disappointing because, as I said, everyone has agreed to it. Even those opposite have agreed on it. The shadow minister for defence, the member for Canning, said in March of this year, 'I think that would be a really important development for a lot of parliamentarians who care about our troops and want to see the best for them.' That was in relation to the establishment of this defence committee. As far back as 2020, the shadow minister for defence wrote an opinion piece where he called for a joint defence committee and said: 'Parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing. If we are serious about increased transparency and accountability then we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force.' That's the shadow minister for defence.

I wonder what happened in the opposition party room last week. Were all of those statements suddenly forgotten and then they decided, 'Well, hold on, we don't want more scrutiny, we have changed our minds'? They said it when they were in government, they said it when they're in opposition and now, at the eleventh hour, when we're about to put forward the bill, they oppose it.

The PJCD will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and the operations of all Australian defence agencies, including the ADF, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs and all of the intelligence organisations—the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation—while the Australian Signals Directorate will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS. There are going to be a broad range of functions that will be established by this bill to act as standing terms of reference for the PJCD and provide for greater oversight, transparency and accountability in significant areas within the Defence portfolio: reviewing admin and expenditure; reviewing defence agencies including annual reports; considering white papers, reviews and other policy documents; strategy, planning and contingency; scrutinising Australia's defence capability; development acquisitions and sustainment; considering matters relating to personnel and veterans affairs, examining and being apprised of war or war-like operations, including ongoing conflicts; monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations, domestically and internationally; reviewing the implementation of the government's response and monitoring the findings of any royal commission inquiring into matters relating to the defence of Australia or any agency; and considering the operation, resources and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. These are critically important tasks that need to be taken up, and those opposite are delaying and blocking this bill.

As Australians, we are fortunate to have a level of peace, security and stability that countless others around the world are not able to appreciate. It can often be easy to take this stability and this security that we enjoy for granted, to think it's just this permanent fixture of Australian life, but the reality is that upholding and protecting that standard of security requires a constant level of vigilance.

The creation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is just one element, and a very crucial element, of the Albanese Labor government's national security and transparency agenda. This bill puts forward those elements of vigilance to do our job, and the government is committed to continuously updating our systems and our security infrastructure to pre-empt and overcome challenges to keep Australians safe and our national interests upheld. That is my task, as the chair of the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I take that job especially seriously, as do the members of my committee. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will take this important responsibility, this sacrosanct responsibility, just as seriously. I urge the opposition to stop playing politics with this bill and to support it, as they have in the past, so that we can pass it through this place.

See this speech in context