Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, which will transform for the better the relationship between the parliament and Australia's defence establishment, and I mean that very seriously and very genuinely. It will see the establishment of a standalone joint statutory committee on defence with real responsibilities and powers. As chair of the defence subcommittee, I crafted the report on armed conflict that recommended the establishment of the committee in this new form. It's been a long time coming. Various similar proposals were recommended under the former government. Ironically, one of those inquiries was led by Senator Reynolds when she was chair of the subcommittee, recommending a similar thing. Then, when she became Minister for Defence, she was not allowed to implement her own recommendations.

I want to touch on the need for the bill. Context is the starting point. As I said, this bill flows from an inquiry into how Australia decides to enter armed conflict situations. This included consideration of what role the parliament has in such decisions and, importantly, in oversighting conflicts and executive government once a decision is made. Our inquiry concluded that decisions regarding armed conflict or the gravest decision of going to war are and must remain the prerogative of executive government, and there is no greater responsibility that any government bears. But alongside that reality there is a clear and urgent need to significantly improve the transparency and accountability of governments for these decisions and the conduct of military operations, and to improve the role and the ability of the parliament to hold governments to account. This necessitates formal arrangements which should be put in place now, including via an appropriately empowered and resourced joint committee with the ability to handle classified national security material appropriately.

In making that recommendation, we also identified the need for broad responsibilities and a revamp of the entire relationship between parliament and the defence enterprise. I mean that in the broader sense: the Department of Defence, the Australian Defence Force, portfolios agencies and entities, defence industry, the Inspector-General of the ADF and so on.

This need flows particularly from the very challenging and complex strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in. We've been saying around this parliament, under the former government and under this government, the vast majority of members of both houses, that our country faces the worst strategic circumstances we've faced since the Second World War. They're not words that can just roll off the tongue lightly. One of the things that we need to do in response to that—that the parliament urgently needs to do—is to devote more time, resources and firepower to scrutinising and working with Defence.

And it's not all about secret stuff, either. A more coherent and coordinated scrutiny of public issues and well-informed public discussion of defence and strategic policy matters is critical. Nothing in this bill would mean less transparency or accountability, but it would mean that the parliament can get into areas that we have never been able to get into before. It's also true that the vast bulk of critical topics and questions that must be explored and understood by parliament are currently off limits due to a lack of power or classification issues. This is unacceptable, and it's also harmful for defence and the ADF in this environment.

I've been a member of the Defence Subcommittee for five years and I've served as chair for the last two years. It is, frankly, ridiculous that elected members of parliament with a serious interest in strategic issues have little to no ability to engage meaningfully with the most fundamental issues that go to the security of our country and our responsibilities, like these: What's really behind white papers and defence strategies? What contingencies are we actually planning for as a country and are we prepared for them? What are our major gaps that require extra attention? They may require policy or legislative action, or new investments. What about long-term multidecade investments that outlast successive multiple changes of government?

We need to understand in a classified forum, a detailed forum, the rationale, the progress and the expenditure on key capabilities as well as sustainment activities. One-third of the Defence portfolio budget is largely off limits to scrutiny from the parliament because it involves sustainment. The minute you do that in public, you may trigger vulnerabilities to potential adversaries, highlighting where stuff's not fit for service. It's ridiculous. This stuff consumes hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

What is our planning for industry mobilisation in the event of contingencies? What about specific issues such as fuel security; the operations, resources and performance of the Inspector-General of the ADF; or matters relating to defence personnel and veterans? And I see the minister here at the table.

I spent two hours here last Friday afternoon in the subcommittee with senior ADF officers—three stars—and two deputy secretaries, reviewing matters relating to the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy. It was a serious and thought-provoking discussion but also frustrating and at times farcical. Throughout the discussion, we constantly and repeatedly hit brick walls, where senior officials said with equal frustration, 'We wish we could brief you on that and explain what we're doing. We wish we could explain to you our thinking on the importance of that capability,' or this thing. 'We wish we could talk with you about that question because we're grappling with it also, and it's difficult.' There are things that are at the intersection of the professional military, senior public servants and the parliament, but we can't talk about them.

The current situation is patently ridiculous and it needs to change, and urgently so. Frankly, this bill should pass both houses this week so we can get on with work. It's not just about the parliament, to be clear; the new committee would be beneficial to defence and also the Australian public. Parliamentary scrutiny is important 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, therefore, the Australian public.

With respect to this committee and the Defence proposal, I draw a parallel with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's a committee that I sit on, the shadow minister sits on and, Deputy Speaker, that you sat on and where we bonded. In the 1980s, the second Hope royal commission into Australia's intelligence agencies explicitly recommended against establishing a parliamentary committee on ASIO. Prime Minister Bob Hawke, in the 1980s, considered that recommendation and very wisely rejected it. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO went on over the coming decades to become today's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It was a wise decision by Prime Minister Hawke, just as this is a wise decision by Prime Minister Albanese.

This committee will be good for scrutiny and oversight, just as the PJCIS was. It was good for fostering greater bipartisanship on national security matters and good for our entire system of government. The senior shadow ministers, like the shadow minister for defence there, are then already engaged and briefed when there is a change of government. They come into the portfolio knowing where they're at. It's good for intelligence agencies themselves. It's built greater knowledge, literacy and awareness amongst MPs of the work our security agencies do that can't be talked about in public. It has enabled them to be held to account for failings in an appropriate way, drawing on insights from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and we do that. I believe it has improved their social licence with the Australian people, who know that the agencies are subject to proper democratic oversight, even if it can't all be done in public.

This stuff is really difficult in a Liberal democracy. It's the inherent tension between the collective security of the Australian people and an individual's liberty. It's absolutely right that democratically elected parliamentarians are the arbiters of that tension. I am a member of the PJCIS this term. The committee is hardworking, diligent, robust when needed and operates in a collaborative spirit. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence—if we can ever get this bill passed—will have the same benefits for democracy and defence as the PJCIS has had for the national intelligence community.

To support the establishment of the committee, the government has provided $17.5 million over the decade, in this budget. It's 1 July; the appropriation is there and ready to go. All we need to do is actually pass the bill. As I said, it's a long time coming. The inquiry I led was to deliver a commitment in the Labor Party's national platform when we came to government. Previous inquiries also recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on Defence, but when the former government responded in 2019 to a recommendation of their own government-controlled committee, they disagreed. They said:

There are already substantial Parliamentary oversight measures in place for the Department of Defence. Australia has enjoyed a long period of broad bipartisanship agreement on Defence policy, operations and force structure and additional measures to enhance bipartisanship are not necessary at this time.

Basically, that is complete waffle. It didn't address the issues in the report. It doesn't address the real issues in front of the parliament or the country and doesn't go to the reality of the issues that we face.

I'll make some gentle remarks about the opposition's current position. It's a little peculiar. More than that, I'd say it's bizarre, disappointing, irresponsible and, frankly, embarrassing for them. Senior members of the opposition—literally every single opposition member I've spoken to over many months and a couple of years, really—acknowledge the need for this to happen. They've been publicly calling for it. Indeed, they've written to us, asking for this bill to be accelerated. There have been wise words from the shadow minister, who's been on the record publicly calling for this since 2020. He said:

… parliamentary scrutiny of Defence is broken and needs fixing.

He went on to say, and I agree:

There is no independent Joint Defence Committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level … This is an area of urgent reform. If we are serious about increased accountability and transparency, then we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Force. Without it, our parliament can't exercise proper civilian oversight of our military.

I agree. We should all agree. So it beggars belief that now the opposition say they won't support it unless we fiddle the membership rules to lock out their political enemies.

The government's position on this has been clear from the beginning. The committee's report, which everyone signed up to, recommended that it be modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Actually, if you look at the bill we're debating and the PJCIS legislation, they are the same. It's cut and paste. This was a unanimous recommendation of the committee—save for the Greens political party's dissenting report. But now it seems, despite the manifest urgency and the benefits to be gained from this for the country, for the parliament, for the Australian people and for Defence itself, we're at a crossroads. The Liberal Party is trying to blackmail the government into agreeing to an undemocratic amendment that would stop parliament ever appointing members of the crossbench to the committee. And the Greens political party say in their dissenting report that they'd support the committee only if members of the crossbench were appointed.

The government is committed to having this bill passed. In realpolitik though—let's just call it out in plain English—the impasse is bizarre. The Liberal Party is incentivising the government to do a deal with the crossbench which they claim to oppose; the crossbench are doing the reverse. Both fringes of politics are acting in self-interest not the national interest. I really encourage all of my colleagues to stop the silly game of parliamentary chicken, grow up and pass the bill as it's drafted, modelled exactly on the longstanding PJCIS legislation.

I'll just make one final point. I'm not speculating, in the months, hopefully, or years or decades to come, what this Prime Minister or future prime ministers would do with that important power to appoint members to this committee, which is exactly the same as the Prime Minister of the day's power to appoint members to the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee.

But I do make the point, as uncomfortable as it is for many of us, the reality is, right now, that about a quarter of Australians are not voting for either major party. I think that's a problem. I do not believe in the cult of the independent—this narcissistic individualism. Governments are collective endeavours. It's great to sit and howl at the moon in the Senate, as the Greens political party do, but governments are collective endeavours, and you change the country for better through government—I believe through Labor governments. Others have a different view, fair enough.

But, given disinformation, foreign interference and misinformation, just imagine the circumstance where our country was faced with a military threat and where the government of the day, whoever they were, had to exercise that grave responsibility and put our troops in harm's way. There may be a time when it would be downright sensible, if not necessary, to have one of the more sensible members of the crossbench in the tent, being briefed and able to talk to that significant proportion of the Australian population who might trust them, not them, not us or not mainstream parties. I don't agree, to be very clear, but I do think it's fundamentally undemocratic to write in legislation a provision that prevents the parliament appointing any member of parliament to a committee.

I'll conclude with the previous comments on the need for this committee, in March this year, again by the shadow minister—you can have the last word again, shadow minister. I've read your stuff, and I agree with you on this: 'I think that it would be a really important development for a lot of parliamentarians who care about our troops and want to see the best for them'—well put. Pass the bill.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased that I'm joined in the chamber by no less than the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—I thank him for the work that he is doing on behalf of our veterans—and also the shadow defence minister. I thank him also for the work he's doing in the defence space and I thank him for his service with the SAS, because he kept our nation safe. He, like others, were sent to conflicts to do what they were asked by the parliament and by the people, and it's a brave undertaking. The fact that he is now continuing to serve our nation and our people in this important role is tremendous, and I do wish him all the very best when he is, one day, the defence minister, because I think we'd be very well served if he were in that portfolio position in the not-too-distant future.

This Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 is an important bill. It establishes the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence through amendments to the Defence Act, which dates back to 1903. Indeed, my hometown of Wagga Wagga is the only inland regional centre with all three arms of defence. Every Army recruit does their soldiering training in Kapooka at Blamey Barracks, home of the soldier, and they do that basic training at 1st Recruit Training Battalion. We have an Air Force base at Forest Hill, RAAF Base Wagga, 'where air power begins', as it says on the hangar. If you spend any time in the Royal Australian Air Force, you will probably end up at Forest Hill, Wagga Wagga. With those brave Air Force men and women at Forest Hill, we also have a Navy base there, where anywhere up to 80 officers serve. Who would have thought? I know the Murrumbidgee is a big river, as that's the Wiradjuri meaning of the name, and it has deep water, but we're very proud to have a Navy base such a long way from the nearest drop of sea water.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

You do have a beach.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) | Link to this | Hansard source

We do have a beach. Thank you to the veterans' affairs minister. It was rated the ninth-best beach in Australia not that long ago! The Navy forms a very important part of our tri-military service in Wagga Wagga, capital of the Riverina.

I say all this in the context of this bill because this new Joint Committee on Defence will often look into Defence infrastructure, funding and spending, and it's important that that is one of its key components and core roles. At the moment, for the Riverina Redevelopment Program, there is $1.40878 billion—that's a thousand million dollars—being spent at the two Wagga Wagga defence bases: Kapooka and Forest Hill. I thank the government for continuing to build on the record funding committed by the former coalition government. It's too important not to. RAAF Wagga and Kapooka go back to the Second World War. They play an integral role in the training of our men and women who wear the uniforms of this nation.

At Blamey Barracks, at Kapooka, the approved budget of $846.864 million covers works including new recruit accommodation, a new medical training facility, a new recruit physical training facility, new recruit welfare facilities, a multifunction centre, and new facilities for the Australian Army Band Kapooka, which is so important. The community think they own the band, but the band are there to play the music and the tunes on the regular Friday march-outs. That is their main role, but they become so enmeshed with the community that the community think they own them. There's also a new headquarters building, a new clothing and Q store, a new weapons range, and other upgraded new infrastructure works—electronics, water, sewerage et cetera. That's at Kapooka.

At RAAF Base Wagga, where we were joined on 13 June by the member for Moreton, in his capacity as Chair of the Public Works Committee, and the member for Hinkler, we toured and we listened to the officials and the defence authorities about the upgrades to RAAF Base Wagga. I say this again, in the context of this bill, because it is very relevant. This is the sort of work which will also be undertaken by this new parliamentary joint committee. The approved budget for the works at RAAF Wagga is $561.929 million, which includes new recruit and training accommodation. Let me tell the parliament: if this wasn't going to be funded, there would be every opportunity for a future government to look at RAAF and think, 'Why do we need to continue operating out of Wagga Wagga?' The accommodation was from the 1950s or 1960s—certainly not fit for purpose for the modern era. The funding will also cover a new combined mess; a new gymnasium and pool; a new weapons training simulations system—they're very expensive, those things, but so very necessary; new fire tanks and pump house; new education facilities; and a new retail facility. These are going to be important components to secure not only the future of those two bases but the future of training in a regional setting, and it's vital that that be the case. All training for Defence doesn't need to be in metropolitan areas; indeed, it probably ought not be in metropolitan areas. I know the work that goes on up in Capricornia and elsewhere right across the nation. If Defence does one thing well, it is spreading its training and works right across this broad nation.

This is important legislation. It is also, as the shadow minister for defence has quite correctly pointed out, deeply concerning that there could be some in the House of Representatives, and indeed the parliament, who do not share the same vision for training, for our defence commitments and for our defence spending as those of the major parties do. By that I mean the Greens; let's call it what it is. I have great concerns about the Greens' attitude towards the security of this nation. I think that is shared across the parliament and its aisles. The Greens, rest assured, are not an environmental party. They stopped being an environmental party decades ago. They are about destroying the very fabric that made this country great. They are about societal change which does not enhance this country and does not place us amongst the great nations of the world.

I've been to Camp Baird on a number of occasions, but, on my very first visit 10 or so years ago on a multiparty parliamentary visit, I can remember being told by the Americans how proud they were to serve alongside Australians. They said how proud they were of our commitment and the fact that, when things got a little bit tough in various conflicts, Australia did not cut and run. The Greens wouldn't have had us there in the first place. They wouldn't have had too many people, if any, wearing the uniform. They certainly would not have made sure that our combat equipment was modernised—the latest and greatest. They wouldn't have been party to that either.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear, 'Shame.' That is so true, because it is shameful that they have this view. None of us like war. None of us like conflict. What is going on in the Middle East and in Ukraine at the moment is so desperate and so unnecessary, and so many innocent civilian lives in particular are being lost. But the price of peace is eternal vigilance. To ensure that we have a nation at the ready, we need to invest. We need to spend money. We need to make sure that, when our fellow like-minded nations, such as Ukraine, are in peril and in trouble, we are there for them. We spend a lot of time, money and effort on making sure that the peace deployments are what they need to be.

The Greens' plan, according to their own platform, states that this party will cancel defence contracts, cut defence spending and renegotiate the US alliance to secure a new relationship focused on making us a better global citizen. They will reduce military spending to 1.5 per cent of GDP and close all military bases that foreign militaries have set up in this country. So that would be goodbye to all the marines who land in the Top End at Darwin in the Northern Territory. It would be goodbye to all of that. It would be goodbye indeed to our US alliance. Rest assured, if ever there is a friend that we will need in times of crisis, it will be the United States of America. It doesn't matter whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. We have a longstanding and close relationship with the United States of America. It's good for us and, rest assured, it's good for them, too.

But, if you get in a power-sharing arrangement with the Greens and those manic, desperate, anti-Australian politicians have any say in government policy, in defence spending or in defence full stop, we will be in trouble as a nation. Say goodbye to AUKUS. Say goodbye to Pine Gap. Indeed, say goodbye to all of that. Those will be the first things cut. I do hope that, whatever the result of the next election, the Greens will be nowhere near the Treasury benches. I'd rather see the Labor Party in majority government than the Labor Party sharing government with that mob—absolutely. I think that would be shared by most sane, sensible people across this nation. Those people in those inner-city electorates who even think of putting the Greens somewhere on their ballot paper other than last need to think again. What also really needs to happen is that Labor members ought think carefully about where their preferences go. In a federal election you need to number every box, but number those very carefully; give it very solid and serious consideration. That's going to be so important.

It's no secret that the Greens are opposed to AUKUS. I know that former prime minister Morrison was criticised for some of the things that he did, but I will defend him until my dying breath because I know the work and effort that he put in during COVID-19. I know that because I saw it; I was right beside him in all those meetings when we were told tens of thousands of Australian could, potentially, die within weeks if we didn't do something. I respect the leadership that he showed and the tremendous effort he went to to put the nation first. That's why the John Hopkins centre rated us second in the world for our COVID-19 response. We kept Australians alive, we kept the doors of business open and we kept Australians in work. That is the legacy of Scott Morrison.

I also know the work that he went to, behind the scenes, to forge a deal with the United States and with the United Kingdom on our defence initiatives—on the things that we have in common with those two great nations. Rest assured that AUKUS is such a good policy that it was adopted by those opposite when they got into power. If it weren't, they would have shelved it—trust me! But they knew that it was the right thing to do, they knew that it was the right investment and they knew that it was the right time and place to do it. That relationship with Washington and with London is so important for Canberra. It's so important because it's going to underpin our defence and our security in the future. National security and the protection of the Australian people is first and foremost the duty of every government, or it should be. It won't be if the Greens have anything to do with power-sharing arrangements after the next election or after any election any time in the future.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 is legislation that is important. It's legislation that I know the shadow minister has foreshadowed amendments to, and I respect those amendments and I agree with those amendments, because this is too important to muck up. It's too important to get this wrong and too important to let any power-sharing arrangements tamper with or have any ill effect on our national security and defence.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The defence of Australia, its people and its interests is the government's most important responsibility. Australians should be assured that their parliament has an important role in debating such matters of national importance, including Australia's involvement in international conflict. This bill increases the transparency and accountability by government regarding decisions and policies relating to the defence of our country. In a Westminster style democracy such as ours, parliament plays a crucial role in providing this by scrutinising and debating the decisions by executive government and the implementation of them by departments and agencies. This scrutiny is important in ensuring best decision-making and the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament and, by extension, a better informed public.

The Senate estimates process has provided useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence, particularly major capability projects, over the years. It will continue to do so following the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. But, in the challenging and complex strategic circumstances we find ourselves in, it's necessary to ensure that parliament can also examine these projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail and depth, and in a more classified setting with the appropriate safeguards in place. This bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing a parliamentary joint statutory committee on defence—the PJCD.

The establishment of a PJCD implements a recommendation from an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I chair, into international armed conflict decision-making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in December 2022. The inquiry, in turn, was initiated to deliver a commitment made by the Australian Labor Party to our national platform. This inquiry was very ably chaired by my colleague the member for Bruce, who spoke earlier in this debate, and in March last year the committee completed its examination of how Australia makes decisions to send service personnel into an armed conflict situation. The investigation took into account such things as the approach of similar Westminster system democracies, parliamentary processes and practices, and security implications of different decision-making models that could compromise ADF safety, operational security and intelligence or have other unintended consequences.

The power to declare war and send military personnel into conflict is arguably the most significant and serious institutional power and the gravest decision a government can make. Through our inquiry, the committee carefully and seriously considered fundamental questions regarding decision-making in relation to international armed conflict and parliamentary oversight both preceding and during the commitment of the Australian Defence Force. We found existing parliamentary oversight and accountability mechanisms for Defence and specified portfolio agencies to be inadequate in balancing accountability and transparency and national security considerations, including the risk of exposing information in the public domain that could be advantageous to potential adversaries.

To that extent, we concluded that there was a clear need to improve transparency and accountability of government decision-making in relation to armed conflict. We found Australia's system of parliamentary democracy to be likely to be kept healthy, effective and well adapted by making sensible changes that respect well-established institutions and conventions. Accompanying recommended changes to the Cabinet Handbook and new standing resolutions of both houses of parliament, we suggested the government had an historic opportunity to exercise leadership and establish what we call a joint statutory committee on defence to enhance Australia's national security while providing increased parliamentary scrutiny of defence. This new joint statutory committee would supersede and enhance defence related functions of the joint Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade. We recommended that the new committee be modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, or the PJCIS, ensuring that it can request and receive classified information and briefings to improve parliamentary scrutiny of defence strategy, policy, capability, development acquisition and sustainment, contingency planning, and major operations.

As we said in the report, it's worth remembering that in 1988 Bob Hawke, then Prime Minister, created the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, rejecting advice of the Hope royal commission not to enhance parliamentary oversight of the intelligence agencies. History has proven Bob Hawke to be correct on this point. We encourage the government to emulate the former prime minister's example and to act to strengthen national security and enhance accountability of Defence to parliament.

We know that the Albanese Labor government is committed to transparency and accountability in this area. That's why the legislation is before parliament today. So it's pleasing to see the government's response to the international armed conflict decision-making recommendations to agree in principle or broadly agree with the report's recommendations. The government welcomed the principal finding that decision-making regarding armed conflict was fundamentally a prerogative of the executive. The government reaffirmed its commitment to improve openness and accountability and to ensure that parliament has effecting mechanisms to examine and debate such decisions.

In recognition of this and balancing transparency with timely decision-making, the government agreed to codify practices relating to informing the parliament about these decisions. In particular, the government agreed to the establishment of a new joint statutory committee on defence, the PJCD; hence the bill before us today gives effect to this, inserting a new part, VIIIAB, in the Defence Act to create the committee, consistent with the recommendations of the joint standing committee.

It is worth noting that previous inquiries have recommended the establishment of a statutory committee on defence. For example, in 2018 the Defence Subcommittee of the joint standing committee recommended establishing a similar joint statutory committee. However, the former coalition government responded in 2019 and disagreed with the recommendation, saying there were already substantial parliamentary oversight measures in place for defence and that additional measures to enhance bipartisanship were not necessary. So, where the former government was unwilling to take this up, the Albanese Labor government is willing to act.

In terms of how the PJCD will operate, the committee will replicate the PJCIS rules that stipulate a total membership of 13 with at least two government and two non-government members per chamber, with members to be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That is really important. We envisage the committee membership would reflect the parliament, consistent with the PJCIS rules.

The PJCD will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and operation of all Australian defence agencies, including the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate will remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS.

This bill establishes a broad range of functions that act as standing terms of reference for the PJCD which provide for greater oversight, transparency and accountability. The PJCD will also have the ability to inquire into other matters on referral by a minister or either house of parliament, as well as on its own initiative in the form of its own-motion power. In recognition of the significance of establishing a royal commission, the committee will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing on an ongoing basis the Australian government's response to the finding of any royal commission inquiry relating to defence. This will be very important with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide reporting. It will be critical to monitor the implementation of the recommendations coming from that, and the PJCD will play a useful role here.

Like the PJCIS, the bill will allow the committee to receive classified information and briefings in the course of performing its oversight. This will require the committee to operate in private in some circumstances, with limits to be applied to information that might be provided to the committee and disclosure of information received by the committee to protect Australia's national security and tactical advantage as appropriate. The provisions of this bill relate to the administrative operations of the committee.

Pleasingly, the government has supported this new statutory committee with funding of $17.5 million over the decade from 2024-25 and $1.8 million per year ongoing. The costs will be met from existing defence resourcing and transferred to the relevant parliamentary department.

I have much respect for the shadow minister for defence; the previous speaker, the member for Riverina; and the subsequent speaker, the member for Fisher, who has done great work as the deputy chair of that subcommittee. But the position taken by the opposition on this bill is not just disappointing but, frankly, irresponsible. Given the current strategic circumstances we face, there is a critical need for a committee such as the PJCD, which can provide effective parliamentary scrutiny. That the opposition would stand in the way of the establishment of this committee just so they can make a political point is reckless and antidemocratic.

I don't want to name too many people on the crossbench, but I will say that I don't think it is appropriate to have a situation where a political party has a spokesperson for peace and nuclear disarmament but no spokesperson for defence to be on such a committee. I'm proud of the fact that I represent the men and women from the RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate and have done so for 17 years. I am proud of the contribution they make to Australia's defence and the contribution they make to Ipswich and surrounds. I believe our country is being served by two great political traditions: the Labor social democratic tradition, to which I subscribe and have devoted my entire life, and the Liberal conservative tradition, which those opposite believe in, which I respect but don't agree with.

Government and opposition have been formed by Labor and the coalition. This is really critical: there may be a circumstance when a crossbencher, suitable and appropriate, could be on this committee, and it is fundamentally antidemocratic to preclude them by way of statutory change. The government's position has been clear from the beginning. The committee recommended it be modelled on the PJCIS, which has enjoyed long bipartisanship support—as did the report which formed the basis for this particular bill to come before the chamber. It's disappointing, in view of the previous comments made by the shadow minister, the member for Canning—which the member for Bruce has outlined on a number of occasions earlier today. The member for Canning said:

The parliamentary scrutiny of defence is broken and needs fixing.

This is an opportunity to take this up today, and in the Senate, to make sure that we have a new joint defence committee.

Indeed, I've travelled in parliamentary delegations to a number of countries over the years, and I've met with defence committees in other countries that don't have the additional responsibility that we have in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Those particular committees can get access to the kinds of classified materials that the PJCIS has, and which this new statutory committee for defence should have. This is simply the right thing to do, and it provides greater accountability and transparency. There are other countries in the world that do this. It's world's best practice. We should do this, and, frankly, the opposition should support this legislation. This lack of bipartisanship is very disappointing. I do not, in any way, say that to depreciate and undermine my confidence in and my respect for the member for Fisher, nor for the shadow minister and nor for the member for Riverina, all of whom, I know, have a long commitment to bipartisanship in this space and who have a strong commitment to the defence of our country. But this legislation should be supported by the opposition.

This bill, and the establishment of this particular committee, is an important step forward in parliamentary accountability and transparency in defence. It will strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of major acquisitions, such as frigates and submarines, and it will allow members to question senior Defence officials on important strategic settings. It's welcome and timely in the current international circumstances. I'm confident it will improve the long-term relationship and collaboration between Defence and parliament.

I want to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, for supporting the committee's recommendations and bringing this critical reform forward. I want to pay tribute to the members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, particularly to the member for Bruce, who has done so much work in this space, and to the member for Fisher, who has also done a lot of work in this space. I want to pay tribute to both of them. I thank the stakeholders and those who submitted it. We should be supporting this bill, and I hope the opposition will change their perspective.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair, to start off with, for his generous comments. I don't doubt the member for Blair's intent or his genuine concern in relation to this issue. He has been the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee since the government came in. I've spent a lot of time with him over the years, but, respectfully, on this point I will disagree with him.

Over the last five years, I've had the privilege of serving this parliament as either the chair or the deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee—with the exception of the glory days when I was the Speaker! In those times, when we were in government, we sought to bring a number of changes to the subcommittee, whether it was under the late Senator Jim Molan or under the current shadow defence minister, or other members of the committee. When we were in government, we saw that the existing Defence Subcommittee was not working as it should. The member for Paterson would know that because she was my deputy chair for some time, when I was the chair.

I wish I had a dollar for every time a senior member of the Defence Force or Defence itself said: 'Sorry, Mr Wallace. We can't answer that question. We're not in the appropriate room, and you don't have the appropriate clearances.' How we could have civilian parliamentary oversight over our Defence Force and the Department of Defence in those circumstances is absolutely beyond me. The Defence Subcommittee, in its current make-up, is fundamentally flawed. It is broken. As we enter into what I think most people in this chamber and most Australians would recognise is the most dangerous geopolitical period since 1945, it is utterly inadequate to be in a situation where civilian parliamentary oversight of our defence forces is inadequate. We are on a ship and we are heading towards the rocks.

That's why, in a recent inquiry, both Labor members and coalition members agreed—it was a recommendation in the war powers inquiry report—that this committee be established. I want to congratulate the government on picking up that recommendation. It's a sensible recommendation, and I support it wholeheartedly. We must have greater parliamentary civilian oversight of our defence forces and the Department of Defence. That is a no-brainer. With the advent of AUKUS, and the amount of money that this country is going to be spending on the defence of this nation, we have to have appropriate civilian oversight.

So I'm on board with the bill, but it comes with a 'but'. This is not a matter of partisan politics. The government want to enable people who are not of parties of government, namely the crossbench and the Greens, to serve on this committee, and that troubles me deeply, just as it troubled me deeply when the government introduced a similar amendment to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am the deputy chair. I agree with the member for Blair in this regard. For these sorts of committees, which hear classified information at a top-secret level—both PJCIS and, if this committee ever gets up, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence—it is vital that they are able to hear evidence to a top-secret level and that we are able to question senior members of the defence department and ADF members. We can't be just blown off, as has happened to me so many times in this place. The importance of this committee, in my view, means it has to be constrained to members in this House who are members of parties of government. When you pull apart the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act, in relation to the establishment of the PJCIS and who sits on it, they are mirrored by the provisions of the PJCD—this new defence committee.

How do you get to be on this committee? Effectively, you are handpicked by the Prime Minister of the day, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. So it's very clear—and I think there's some more work to be done on all of this—that to serve on this committee you actually don't need a security classification. You don't need to be vetted by our security agencies, in the same way that the Minister for Defence or any other minister of the crown is not vetted. This is a flaw in our existing system. Because there is no vetting, we rely upon the Prime Minister of the day and his judgement and that of the opposition leader and his or her judgement to confer and say: 'Who's an appropriate person to be on this committee? Who do we know that will receive classified information at a top-secret level and not walk out of here and leak it to the media or, worse, leak it to foreign foes or, worse, use it as political leverage?'

There are provisions in the Intelligence Services Act and the Defence Act that would provide for serious terms of imprisonment for anyone who broke those laws. But what really, really concerns me is that the government is going to use the opportunity to appoint the crossbench—to appoint Greens and to appoint Independents—in the event of perhaps a hung parliament at the next election. That really worries me: 'You support me, you give me your number, you guarantee supply, and I'll give you a job on the PJCIS or the PJCD.'

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it could never happen, Member for Paterson! It could never happen! Well, do you know what? It is exactly the reason why this government is allowing for the appointment of crossbenchers to this committee.

There is no justification. The Greens will never form government in their own right. They'll only do that with the Labor Party. Independents will never form government in their own right. It is only the members of parties of government who should sit on this vitally important committee that will oversee the AUKUS arrangement, the largest defence procurement project ever undertaken by this government, at a time of the most geopolitical instability. It is the greatest instability since 1945, a time when government and opposition of either flavour need to work together to defend this nation. The PJCIS, which I've served on as the deputy chair, has never leaked in its 30-odd years of being in existence—not once. No member has leaked, because they knew, if they leaked, guess what? They'd go to jail. If they go to jail, it destroys their political career. Do you know what? I can't say the same about the Greens. It is the Greens' political manifesto that they want to abolish the ANZUS Treaty. They want to do crazy things, like remove joint military bases with the United States. That means no more rotational marine force in Darwin. It means no rotational submarine forces in the west, with either the UK or the United States. It means no more Pine Gap. It means no more North West Cape.

Looking at the importance of these military bases, not just to the United States but to the defence of this country, these arrangements have been in place for decades as a bipartisan arrangement that has secured the defence of this nation. The government's willingness to water down the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is of great concern. It will impact upon our very alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom at a time which is most dangerous. At a time when we need to gather together our friends and allies, the government, through this bill, and through wanting to allow crossbenchers to sit on this committee, fundamentally weakens our position and makes us vulnerable.

The bill itself is common sense. It's a good development and it should be encouraged. I want to extol and encourage those members opposite, in the government, when the member for Canning, the shadow defence minister, moves his motion to restrict members of the defence committee just to those from the parties of government, to accept that they got it wrong—to accept that national security should not be politicised and to accept that the defence of this country is so important that it shouldn't be traded as a political bargaining tool with the Greens to garner support for a minority Labor government. That's what this is all about: the willingness of the government to water down this bill and this defence committee by including the crossbench will do nothing other than make this country more vulnerable and subject to risk than it already is. Our foes—and, yes, we have foes—are watching this very, very closely. We cannot weaken on this point. I want to encourage those opposite to rethink their position on this. It's a commonsense approach. Don't weaken it for the sake of political expediency.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. I came onto the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2018. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, being afforded the honour of going onto that committee. Speaking of honours, I had the honour of serving on that committee with the late Senator Jim Molan. Whilst we were, clearly, from very opposing political sides, I learnt a lot from Jim on that committee. In fact, he took me under his wing somewhat and I went on to become the deputy chair from opposition—not only of the defence subcommittee but then also of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

One of the inquiries that we undertook as the defence subcommittee in 2018 was into this very topic. The inquiry looked at making the defence committee a standalone statutory committee of the parliament. That was for the very reason that a number of members have pointed out in this debate today: we live in a world of increasing complexities within the defence and security arena, and in order to have adequate civilian parliamentary oversight of defence, it is necessary for the members of a future committee to be able to hear confidential and secret information.

When you look at the arc of history in relation to this, you see that this committee was first expanded by Gough Whitlam in 1973 to include defence and foreign affairs because we needed increased scrutiny of defence. The former prime minister, in 1973, said as much when he expanded the then committee. I think it is so important that we reflect on a little of this history. Since 1973 defence has been subject to scrutiny by the committee. The then prime minister, the Hon. Gough Whitlam MP, told the House that expanding the role of the former Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to cover the Defence portfolio indicated his government's desire to give parliament its proper role in the study of two important areas of national interest and concern.

In the 51 years since 1973, when the Whitlam government had the intention of providing oversight and scrutiny through a committee, the world has changed markedly. But what hasn't changed is the need for that oversight and scrutiny. I've had the great pleasure over the last few weeks of being present with the deputy speaker in the chair at the moment, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, in undertaking the National Security College course, through the Australian National University, looking at these very issues—secrecy versus oversight, and transparency in a modern world. How do we balance the need for secrecy in protection of our country—and we know we need it—with transparency? One of the examples given this morning by a member was the Iraq War. Was the prime minister of the day misled? How did it come about that we went into that war based on what we now know to be factual inaccuracies? We should never doubt that we need parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, because in a modern democracy it is this oversight by elected representatives that provides the foundation and the underpinning.

One other observation that has been made to me that I think is so interesting is that the PJCIS, which does very good work in the intelligence space, is a committee that works largely in a bipartisan way. That is because the members of that committee are privy to information that members of parliament normally wouldn't be privy to. Therein is the important message: there is detail, there is nuance, and when it is explained to members of that committee they are able to very deftly and accurately put forward legislation that will progress the security of our intelligence and ensure Australia has an adequately resourced and appropriate underpinning of legislation for our intelligence community. That is so important in the security of our nation, and that is the model being proposed by this legislation.

I get quite agitated when I hear members of the opposition saying the government is trying to water down this legislation and honeycomb this model. As we've heard, the PJCIS has worked very successfully. People have maintained the confidence of that committee, and that is exactly how this new defence committee will operate. The legislation will provide criminal penalties for leaking. The government is in no way trying to water down this new committee. It will be as robust as the PJCIS and will be reflective of our parliament, which I think is an important thing.

I just want to share some of Jim Molan's thoughts from that seminal report that we did back in 2018. I wish that members in the coalition would take some advice from one of their own. As I read these words, I can't help but think of Jim, wherever he may be, flailing against the decision of his counterparts. He fought tooth and nail to stand up a committee like the one that this government wants to deliver for the parliament. And I again say to those members opposite: if you won't listen to us on the government side, then please listen to the words of Jim Molan when he said:

… I now take responsibility for both the Report and this Foreword.

Through its committees, the Parliament discusses and debates complex areas of policy and can reach agreement on solutions that transcend party lines to advance the interests of all Australians. As part of this process, the Defence Sub-Committee is expected to exercise, on behalf of the Parliament, appropriate oversight of the entire defence function across Australia.

This inquiry seeks to move towards bipartisanship on defence policy and so provide greater long-term stability for Defence and its industry partners in the midst of the most significant upgrade of Australia's defences in peacetime. Our recommendation is that the admirable level of bipartisanship achieved within the PJCIS should be the objective of a revamped Defence Sub-committee—

that would in fact sit, as Jim explained it to me, within the model that we are proposing with this legislation. I will go on quoting Jim:

This inquiry on bipartisanship arose from the Defence Sub-Committee's 2017 Review of the Defence Annual Report 2015-16. That review highlighted the challenges this Sub-Committee faces in seeking to oversight Defence's implementation of the internal reforms arising from the First Principles Review and the progress of the $200 billion investment in new defence capability outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper. We found that greater engagement between the Parliament and Defence would support the implementation of these vitally important reforms.

Now fast forward eight years, and we've had a defence strategic review and we have again had another raft of changes in Defence. We are putting more of Australia's hard earned tax dollars into Defence than ever before—two per cent of GDP—and it is absolutely vital that there is transparency and that there is parliamentary oversight. Australians place their trust in us as elected representatives to come here and do our best for them. But I remember Jim saying to me, 'You can't do that with one hand tied behind your back.' He meant you can't do that without access to information.

As the member for Fisher pointed out—he was the chair of the Defence Subcommittee when I sat as his deputy. Again, I'm sitting on the subcommittee and within the main committee, and I cannot tell you the number of times Defence has said to us—in fact, as recently as last Friday in an update on the fleet—'We'd really like to share more of this with you, but we simply can't.' That has to change. How can we possibly have reasonable oversight and scrutiny of our incredible Defence Force? I apportion no criticism whatsoever to Defence, but we do need to work with them and we do need to have all of the information so that Defence can continue to not only defend our great nation but also work with our industry partners.

Again, that was one of the things that came up all those years ago in 2018, when we did this review. We had a number of people from industry saying to us, 'The only way to really have a well-functioning and integrated Defence Force with industry and correct and appropriate parliamentary oversight is with the committee being fully briefed.'

Raytheon Australia highlighted the importance of increasing transparency to improve political debate:

The best way to encourage a shared political position on Defence capability is to ensure that transparency in the capability plan is maintained. One of the reasons parliamentary committee deliberations get bogged down on these issues is that the level of understanding on the part of committee members of Defence capability is often low. Maximum possible transparency would lead to more mature political discussion on capability and generate a more informed level of debate.

That was Raytheon Australia from that inquiry that we did back in 2018. This is also about defence literacy. We parliamentarians don't all come to this place with defence qualifications or experience. I want to recognise those members who sit amongst us who have worked for us either in the defence capacity or in defence industry. They have provided great service to our nation.

But there are those of us, like me, who represent places like Williamtown. RAAF Base Williamtown is not only the pre-eminent F-35 base in Australia; it also supports around 5,000 people in my seat who call RAAF Base Williamtown their place of employment. I made it my business, when I came here, to improve my defence literacy. I've done that over the last eight years of working closely with people from RAAF Base Williamtown, and I will always thank them for their patience with me and their instruction while I have been learning those things. I've also worked with colleagues and other defence personnel across the nation, and I have learnt that you don't know what you don't know. You need to seek information and be briefed.

That is why I am speaking so wholeheartedly on behalf of this bill. I know that people like Richard Marles, our defence minister, and people who formerly wore the uniform, like the late senator Jim Molan, are calling for it. If there is an alignment in the thinking of those two people, then surely the current leadership regime of the coalition would take that into account and understand that we're actually at a seminal, pivotal point in Australia's defence trajectory. We know the world is changing under our feet; it is moving. We need to have appropriate oversight. We do need to have scrutiny. It must come from democratically elected people. We must hold up the tenets of democracy. But the only way to do that successfully and genuinely in a bipartisan way is to have a statutory committee like the one proposed in this bill, where members are fully briefed and face criminal penalties if they leak from that committee. It is absolutely essential.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher and other members of the coalition have argued that leaving an opening for a member of the crossbench on this committee would weaken it. I will take the opportunity in this speech to argue the reverse. In the current iteration of this parliament, and with the current community sentiment around Independents, leaving an opening for a member of the crossbench on this committee will strengthen it.

Peter Varghese has had a long and distinguished career serving governments, both coalition and Labor. He was John Howard's foreign policy adviser and Director-General of the Office of National Assessments under both Mr Howard and Kevin Rudd and was then appointed by Julia Gillard to be the head of DFAT. He remained in that high office when the coalition came to power in 2013. Mr Varghese has been prepared to give the political leaders he served frank, fearless and objective advice regardless of which party they came from. He was respected, in short, by all he served and was rewarded for his intellect, insights and advice. Here's what he had to say about AUKUS in the Australian Financial Review, and it's worth quoting:

The real test of sovereignty is whether you can defend yourself and credibly deter an attack on your territory.

Is that what the nuclear submarines deliver? Or would it be smarter to design a defence capability, including the best conventional submarines, which may give us less to offer in a war in north-east Asia but which may be more affordable and more effective in the defence of continental Australia?

I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions. But I would have thought that before we took decisions as momentous as the AUKUS submarines that there would be a proper and forensic public discussion about other options and their underlying rationale.

It may be odd to argue that a decision to acquire a capability which will not be fully delivered for three decades, if all goes to plan, has been made with unseemly haste. No one on the inside would think so. They have no doubt crunched the numbers and the policy options.

But decisions of this magnitude can easily emerge in an echo chamber. And the biggest threat to good policy is a failure forensically to test assumptions and weigh options. Much of that can and should be done outside classified discussions.

'Unseemly haste' and 'echo chamber'—this is not the Greens talking; this is one of the most senior and esteemed public servants Australia has produced.

Our Defence budget is currently going through its most significant transformation since the 1980s, when we formally abandoned the doctrine of forward defence and replaced it with the principle of defence of Australia. It was an assertion of sovereignty, an assertion that we should be as self-reliant as possible. Now, almost overnight and with no debate at all, the previous government, with the acquiescence of the Labor Party, agreed to an entirely new approach which, as Varghese points out, reduces our sovereignty and ties us even closer to the United States.

To be clear, I'm not saying AUKUS is necessarily the wrong prescription but that very real and important questions remain—not least the question of whether it's right to put all our eggs in one basket for the next half-century, with a price tag of no less than $360 billion. These questions need rigorous analysis. As Varghese says:

What defence capabilities are we not getting because we have set aside some $360 billion for nuclear submarines?

We, the people, were never let in on this discussion, let alone debate, and it's not surprising then that the public should be ambivalent, at best, about AUKUS. A recent poll conducted by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney found that 42 per cent of those polled thought that the AUKUS submarines are not worth the cost. At the same time, 46 per cent thought AUKUS is good for creating jobs. A poll conducted by the Lowy Institute got a different result, but still found that 32 per cent of respondents, a significant number, were opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines.

What I've outlined goes directly to the importance of bringing the public into our confidence, especially when it comes to defence and national security. It goes directly to the importance of setting up a committee and getting it right. More than 30 per cent of voters in this country no longer support a major party, and there is no sign of that trend ending—as much as the major parties would like to wish it away. Even polling today further indicates the entrenchment of this trend. That makes it even more important that this committee, which I regard as an excellent idea, reflects the way the nation votes and the composition of this parliament. Therefore, I would argue that the government has done a good thing by leaving the way open for a crossbencher to be a member of the committee. This is as it should be. I noticed that the shadow minister, in his second reading speech, dismissed the idea that it was legitimate for a member of the crossbench to be a member of the committee, and I note that the member for Fisher, who spoke earlier, did the same.

I'm a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee. I've reported on conflicts, civil unrest, displacement and national security across the world—in Africa, in South-East Asia, and indeed, on geopolitical matters in the United States—for decades. Why should I, or other crossbench members—reasoned, considered and professional people—be denied the possibility of being a member of this committee when major party members get an automatic slot? My colleague the member for Clark was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 2010 to 2013 and behaved, by all accounts, impeccably—nothing leaked. The only question that has emerged in recent history has come from the coalition benches, when questions were raised about information received on an official committee trip to the United States and then raised under privilege in this House. Whether the information was in the public interest is not in question; the question is whether the material should have been used in this way. It also raises the innate question of a double standard in this debate.

Defence is a common theme among my constituents. Many of them raise the issue of AUKUS with me and they would like a full public airing about the way our defence budget is spent. From that point of view, my strong view is that this committee should accurately reflect the make-up of this parliament. It is also important to note that the legislation does not specifically allocate a position on this committee to a member of the crossbench. All it does is not prevent the Prime Minister from choosing to allocate a position on the committee to a member of the crossbench. Again, my strong view is that to allow that is to strengthen, not weaken, the committee.

I would also like to go to the member for Fisher's point, suggesting that a position on this committee could be used as a form of transactional politics in the event of a hung parliament after the next election. With respect to the member, I think that is an outrageous suggestion—to consider that a member of the crossbench would somehow trade away their independence in order to get a seat on that particular parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, I think the very suggestion goes to a culture of politics in this place that perhaps doesn't exist on the crossbenches and perhaps does in other parts of this House. For a member's mind to even go to that says a lot about the mentality in this place, the ethics of members and the kinds of considerations that they might consider when making decisions.

I would also make the point that one key issue during the campaign in the lead-up to the 2022 election in my electorate of Goldstein was fragmentation of public trust in political leaders. I think that the key reason that members of the crossbench were elected at the 2022 election—and, indeed, before, in the member for Indi and also the member for Warringah—was that people wanted direct representation from their members and a degree of politics done differently. So for the coalition to be suggesting that members of the crossbench are in some way less trustworthy—more likely to leak information from a committee as it relates to national security—is downright offensive and I think would be seen as downright offensive by members of our communities who have elected members of the crossbench as Independents to represent them directly. The reason it is critical, I think, to have a member of the crossbench on a committee like this is so that the bipartisan groupthink on defence that currently exists between the major parties is not allowed to progress unfettered.

As a former journalist, my strong view—apart from not leaking—is that questions need to be asked. This is critically important in a committee like this. The coalition's suggestion that it is more trusted than members of the crossbench is a bit of a joke, quite frankly.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.