Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Small. I'd like to thank the member for Bruce as well because the social contract goes to the heart of how we defend our country, whether every Australian feels an equal investment because they have equal rights and responsibilities. That was exactly what the former member who was speaking on the bill was enunciating, and neither I nor the member for Bruce sought to interrupt him when he was making this point, and I'm quite happy to do so as well. I simply say that I believe that every Australian should have equal rights, and, when we have other pieces of legislation which give different laws in different contexts, we believe that all people should have equal rights, and I will not resile from that debate. So, if special rights or special legal parameters are given to one section of the community, I believe it should be extended. If we don't, then how can every person have an equal investment in our community sufficient that everybody can have an equal interest in defending the future of Australia?

It's a principle of equality. It's one I believe in very deeply. I fundamentally believe in equality for all citizens because it goes to the heart of whether people feel an equal investment to defend the country, among other things. I understand this is a foreign concept to the member for Bruce, but it actually is central to our governing philosophy and actually what makes this country very important. We've seen too many times in previous debates where unfortunately the Labor Party has not risen to this occasion, from whether people have an equal right to be able to get married all the way through to, of course, other debates. But, when we come to this piece of legislation, we seem to continue to enliven it, because we also have a responsibility to make sure there is proper governance and oversight of how public money is spent.

Having served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and having looked at the challenges of oversight of our intelligence agencies, often dealing with the issues of security, secrecy and the national interest, it remains of absolute importance that, whatever agency sits within the artifice of government, it has parliamentary oversight, because that's central to whether the public has confidence in the parliament itself in terms of making sure there's proper and bureaucratic oversight, but, in addition to that, they have confidence in the political process and the institutions of this building. Of course, in the intelligence and security space, it has been of paramount importance that the PJCIS does its work, particularly when there are topics or issues that can't be discussed in the public square, but we cannot let our intelligence agencies off without any oversight or accountability. The PJCIS, broadly speaking, does that well in a relatively bipartisan way, but it also, of course, does things like have closed hearings to receive information as is appropriate.

The same is also now emerging as one of the most critical issues in Defence—the volume of Defence expenditure, whether it's set by the coalition or by a Labor government or any other future government of any other stripe. It's important to understand that there is proper oversight to make sure that Defence and the ADF have that accountability about their expenditure, because the spending of billions of dollars, whether it's on submarine programs, long-range missile programs or any other type of technology which naturally has a certain veil of secrecy around it because of intellectual property and our relationships and treaties with other countries, must be done in an environment where there is still oversight and good use of public money.

This is about making sure that our defence organisations have accountability but also that they're kept in check so that they can get the maximum value for the taxpayers' money that they have, because they should be motivated—and I'm not contesting that they are—to do things in the best interest of defending Australia. There should be accountability, focus and attention on their work to make sure that there's a driving down of needless cost and to ensure there isn't waste, and they also need the backstop to say, 'We are going to have to report this to parliament.' That is just as important for them and for fulfilling their function as it is for the role of parliamentarians to be able to go out and hold hand over heart and tell the Australian public, if you want to have an equal investment in this country enough to want to defend it—which is a central pillar of a liberal democracy, despite the objections of the member for Bruce—that they need to be confident that there are proper processes in place.

Of course, this is the evolution of a long legacy of propositions put forward by the coalition from the late great senator Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett, who all championed different forms of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in their different capacities in these roles. That's important. As Jim Molan said in the 2018 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Contestability and consensus: a bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence:

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.

I think that's a worthy and just contribution and shows that this has been a longstanding discussion—to get to a point where the ADF is brought within the fold of the parliamentary system to mutual benefit. I think it really is incredibly important that we also have continuity around oversight that builds up institutional capacity within the ADF as well as within the parliament, because electoral fortunes mean that, at any given time, some of us may or may not be here. The carriage of programs across parliaments, both on the ADF side and on the parliamentary side, is an important part of the institutional memory of both institutions—to build public confidence as well.

One of the most important things we need to make sure of is that this committee is focused on the core purpose, which is lifting the standard of the expenditure of public money and lifting the standard of the output of the ADF. That's why it's very important that those who are on the committee are focused on governance, not on grandstanding. We know, in the context of the PJCIS, that there has been a generally longstanding principle that there are representatives from the government and the opposition, because those are broadly the alternative choices for those who take responsibility of the Treasury benches. That has worked very well. I know there are always other members of parliament from minor or independently minded—hopefully temporarily—communities who like to find their way into close proximity into power, but never want to take any responsibility associated with it, to grandstand. Needless to say, I have a lot of views on that subject matter, but I'll reserve them for another day.

Now, all of a sudden, the member for Bruce wants me to go off topic!

I've been given an invitation to move off topic! However, the point is that great power comes with great responsibility. That's actually never lost. This is one of the things, genuinely, that I think is harder sometimes to communicate to the public: whatever the limitations of the parties of government, we understand and have our own institutional structures in place—even when we don't always agree on what we have on each side—to govern the country when our time or responsibility comes, if it is given to us by the good stewardship and judgement of the Australian people. It doesn't mean, of course, that we always sanction what the other does.

Whereas, when individuals or minor parties come along whose primary objective is to draw attention to themselves or to justify their relevance or continuation in office—because that's all, ultimately, they can do—that does not exist, because they don't have the institutional memory, the collective wisdom and the input and feedback loops necessary. So there is a proportion of 'rights without responsibilities' that takes over. That's why I think that these committees have a responsibility between the opposition and the government to be measured and to focus on people who are going to take those great leaps of responsibility in higher office and that it makes logical sense to have people from the alternative parties of government. Of course if any crossbenchers wish to become part of future governments, they have that choice in the future.

I do see this as a fundamental test. We shouldn't be having people who, on issues like national defence, don't sign up to the belief that Australia should have a defence force that, if necessary, has to act in Australia's national interest in a capacity which is sometimes challenging to project. We need to be very clear eyed about what Australia's national interest is and that some of us accept office because we pursue responsibility. Sometimes that's responsibility we don't want to exercise but must in the interest of our country and for its long-term conservation, even if it comes to personal cost. Again, I come back to it. That is what I think a lot of the people in this parliament do seek to do and, unfortunately, in previous parliaments have been called to do.

It is one of the most challenging things about this office from different times—coming to terms with the fact that we are in the most dangerous time since the Second World War for Australia. We've never had a time where the fear of contest is so clearly within our region. That brings out many challenges for us as members of parliament—those who may be key decision-makers, obviously, presently those members of the Labor Party. The decisions we make today will have a material long-term consequence about the world that our children grow up in and also the safety and security that every Australian will feel into the future.

We have to be clear eyed and mindful. We need to make sure that defence is investing in the technology we need for tomorrow. We have to make sure we have the technology, working with our allies, for this nation to be able to stand on its own two feet. That means a component of sovereign capability, from building out missiles, drones, cyber and undersea systems and sustaining our domestic capacity to building out the capacity of our allies and working through it.

It's also about understanding the broader strategic context in which we operate. Some of our competitors in the region and internationally operate increasingly in grey-zone activity, where they're neither in a permanent state of peace nor conflict. This is one of the greatest challenges because the traditional that we think of strategic rivalry is that we're in a state of war or peace, but, increasingly, through cyber conflict and other nefarious forms of activity, we have certain nations and non-state actors seeking to actively engage in methods of undermining and assault on our national institutions—financial institutions, payment systems, technology infrastructure. As we pass national security laws around securing institutions, we need to make sure that we get the best value for our buck because our resources will increasingly be stretched as we are required to engage further and further in a security premium as a country.

Having oversight of large programs like AUKUS will be an important part of our country's long-term capacity to defend itself and to, more importantly, integrate with our allies as appropriate. Whatever the issue is, we need parliamentarians who hold the ADF accountable. We need to make sure we're building up our own institutional capacity to do that, but the ADF needs to do that in sync with us. The future security of this country is of paramount importance to this parliament, and it must be for parliaments to come, and the role of this committee is to make sure there is a permanent state of affairs.

See this speech in context