Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting that we have in this Chamber today two people who have both been the Deputy Chair of the National Security Committee. What is not astounding is why we find this issue so important.

Australia has found itself in circumstances unlike, I would suggest, anything since the Second World War or maybe similar to the Cold War. We have to understand exactly how there is a malevolent force that does not believe in the democratic principle and does not believe in the general rules of law of the international community. We have to understand that this process is not a secret; there have been 14 points delivered to Australia about how it must act, so this is not anything of any peculiarity. One only needs to read about the circumstances of history and how the world works. I might reflect deeply because this is something of the utmost importance to me, noting that this bill, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025, is about compulsory questioning within the framework of ASIO.

There was a time around 260 BC when there was a formidable power called Carthage, which basically dominated the Western Mediterranean. The Carthaginians—which were really the Venetians, which, in today's parlance, were the Lebanese—occupied a whole section of Corsica. Within that remit of their power, they included the island of Sicily. Sicily was part of the dominion, as were sections of the Iberian Peninsula. What was happening at the same time was a rise of another power, on the Italian Peninsula; that was Rome—not Latinian but Rome. Rome were a bit unhappy about the Carthaginians being in Sicily, so they decided to push the matter; it took them a range of times to do it but they finally did it. On that circumstance—I don't want to dwell on it too much, except to say history repeats itself. After that we had the dominion of the Western Mediterranean speaking Latin and the whole culture change to Roman.

That's how society works; there's challenge in response, as the texts I studied at high school said. And we've got it again: China wants the Western Pacific, rather than the Western Mediterranean, to be part of, in its words, a Mandarin speaking culture. It says that democracy is not essential, that democracy is a secondary form of government to guided government. That is, to be quite frank, totalitarianism—the unitary power of a person that subordinates the right of the individual. We have seen that in splendid form in recent times, with the unilateral takeover of the South China Sea. I think you would see it in the more exceptional form of how China deals with the individuals or citizens of Hong Kong, with the incremental increase of Chinese power and Chinese ethos. Journalists have been just taken off the streets. Some of them are so brave that they went back and revisited their belief in that ubiquitous nature of what we are as humans—their desire for freedom, their desire to speak their mind and their belief in their responsibility to let other people know. All the facets and judgements that make up an open society—they were not allowed to have that.

We had tennis players—major ones, and one lady especially, who happened to make a statement against the government, never to be seen again except once when they paraded her out for the media. This is the world we are living in now—and they've been in this building. We know about the inference and the capacity not of the Chinese people but of the communist regime to have their agents, their quasi-agents or their sympathisers working in this building. This is not pretend; this is happening. We're in live time.

At the change of government, which I could see happening—we're not fools; we could see it happening—I said to senior Labor people in the corridor: 'If there's one thing you must be aware of, don't think the communist influence is coming; the communist influence is here. The communist actors are here. They are here right now.' What's so important about this is that, with this incremental attack on our democratic way of life, with this incremental attack on the sovereignty of our nation, with, unfortunately, the circumstances, prevarications and uncertainty in US policy that we've seen lately, we have to be so incredibly astute, aware and on our toes. We have to be en pointe. We have to understand that, if we don't make ourselves aware, understand the role of ASIO and understand the role of ASIS, we are putting our nation at risk.

I was concerned when the National Security Committee of Cabinet talked about removing ASIO. That is not the thing you want to do. You need to have, in that fridge-like chamber that, if you're lucky enough, one day you'll get to sit in, all the information before you for the decisions that you have to make, which at times have people's lives on the line. We need to invest in these agencies so that they are at the very top of their game.

This is going to become even harder now. One of the things that stands behind the difficulty that's now arising is what is happening with artificial intelligence. With artificial intelligence, as we move toward quantum computing, the capacity of a malevolent force to have effect, see everything you do, hear everything you say, observe every document you write and know of every interrelationship you have with every colleague—let's talk about a fundamental thing. Once I get access to your phone—and I do—I also have access to every person you talk to. I know every person you talk to. With AI, it's not like humans going around listening to people; it's AI listening to people, listening to the people who you talk to and listening to the people that they talk to. They can very easily cover this wide dynamic and absorb this information. It doesn't take them long before they know exactly what the Labor caucus is saying. It doesn't take them long before they know exactly what the coalition is saying. It doesn't take them long before they know exactly of all the interrelationships you have, and you can bet one of those paths leads to Babylon, leads to the capacity for a person to say, 'Got it; I'm inside and hearing everything.'

And how do we suss these people out? We have had people in cabinet who we later find are very closely aligned with companies that are state owned enterprises of the Chinese government. We were not at the time aware of them. That's a disgrace. That's a total disgrace—treacherous. And I'm not for one moment saying that they were on the Labor side; no, they were on ours. They are around. So those of us in this room also have a responsibility as members of parliament to keep your eyes and ears open and to listen to people. I hate to say this, but don't take them on face value; listen to them and be aware. There is a lot of money to be made if you are treacherous. You can set yourself up very well if you are treacherous, and that's when you need an organisation such as ASIO to come in and say, 'We want to ask some serious questions. You're going to sit down.'

I always believed, when I used to think about this, that it would be great if you had senior, highly respected members from both sides of the political fence who were retired and out of parliament and basically had a role to have general observation of members of parliament. They would have the capacity to walk in and say, 'We want to have a yarn to you, warning you about things. We want to have a yarn to you about how to not get yourself into a tricky situation.' I had ideas in my head of people such as Kim Beazley and John Howard, who could just say, 'Well, we're going to talk to you.' Also, if there was any suspicion, they could say, 'No. We really want to talk to you, and today we have an ASIO officer in the room with us and we're going to find out exactly what you've been up to. We're interested.'

If we don't understand this, we are so foolish. Our role right now has at its apex that this nation become as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. We have to understand the circumstances that we are in. The Russians are very good too; the Russians are excellent. The Chinese are very, very good. The North Koreans have a crack at it. The Iranians and others have a crack at it. But don't think for one second that they're stupid. Don't think that they're off their game. They are on point. We can say, 'No. That's all in the past,' but there's actually more of it now than there was in the past.

So I commend this bill and I hope that, in doing so, other people understand what we need to do. I hope they understand the dramatic build-up of the Communist arsenal that even Minister Wong has given reference to. No-one can really explain why it has been built up, and they don't want to tell us why. But I suppose you can divine why. You can sit back and think about why you need the projection of power.

I think we could all ask ourselves the question: What was the purpose of a Chinese flotilla circumnavigating Australia? What was the message that was being sent when they conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea adjacent to Sydney? Why were they doing that? Were they sending a message to say, 'Don't step out of line or you'll be in trouble'? Why did they send their research vessel, which was obviously finding any intelligence it could, through Bass Strait? Why do they hack into our computers? Why do they send vessels to monitor all electronic communications off Rockhampton? Why do they do that? And, between Silicon Valley and China, why are they absolutely scrambling and doing a very, very good job right now of getting themselves to the apex of AI for their assessment processes. Why do they incarcerate Uighurs? Why did they build access roads into India? Why did Wang Yi go to Timor-Leste, Port Moresby, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and have communications with the Cook Islands and have a look at Fiji? Why would they do that? Were they bored? Is there nothing on? Or are they thinking about encirclement and the capacity to put us under threat?

I'll close on this: if we get this wrong, people will say, 'They're going to invade.' No. That's too expensive. I'll give you the No. 1 thing they have in mind. Whether you like it or not, the trading currency for Australia is the US dollar, which we are all dealing in. Now imagine if you were forced or knew that you had to trade in renminbi, the Chinese yuan. At that point, they would determine the value of everything in Australia. They would have completely dominated Australia economically without ever firing a bullet.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am surprised that there is not a long list of people wishing to address this issue. It's been left up to the member for New England and me to talk on this very important topic. Nobody gets it better than two former deputy chairs of the National Security Committee. We have both seen and heard things within a framework of that role that are very disturbing, and no doubt the government also has information before it that is a worry. Why else would the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, the member for Corio, say that we live in the most precarious times since World War II? That is why this bill and other measures that the government is taking are important.

I appreciate that, for social media exercises, reducing HECS debt sees just about every Labor member on their feet making 10-minute statements, even though the legislation has long since left the House of Representatives. I understand that. We live in a political environment. We do what we need to do. But, when it comes to bills such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 2025, I am a little bit disappointed that there aren't more—any—Labor speakers who want to get to their feet and talk about this, because it is important.

Our national security has to be the No. 1 issue facing the government, this parliament, because, if we keep our people safe, that is our main objective. The member for New England summed that up very succinctly. It's not about worrying about reds under the bed. It's not about being alarmist. It's about making sure that we have the measures in place, in a world being taken over by artificial intelligence, in a world being overtaken by nefarious characters, in a world where sometimes the great unknown is very much on our doorstep. We have to be ready. The price of peace is eternal vigilance, and when you have two former deputy chairs of the security committee, the No. 1 security committee in this nation, willing to speak on this, you know it's an important topic, you know it's an important bill.

These complementary bills seek to extend and expand the compulsory questioning powers in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act). That's what these bills are about. That's the substance. But, more than that, the member for New England and I know how important they are because we've heard, we've seen and we've lived the sort of evidence you get before that committee. You know that the government has a responsibility—and a huge responsibility it is—to take every precaution to keep our citizens safe.

We've seen in recent times, for example, the Dural caravan incident. You turn on the television on any given day to incidents around the world, but, more specifically, they're happening on an increasing basis here at home. Often, they are mad and bad and sad people, but they are occurring. Since 7 October 2023, in capital cities but also in my hometown of Wagga Wagga, we've seen people taking the Middle East situation way too far. In fact, there is a person appearing in court next month in Wagga Wagga for the window displays that he put up. That will be a real test case for this sort of situation. I'll leave the court to worry about that. That is their place to do that. But ASIO needs the powers necessary to do everything it can to keep Australians safe.

I have to give plaudits to the people who do keep us safe—these ASIO officials, these top-level intelligence agents. We have very good people in those areas. Mike Burgess and others have done a power of good in keeping us safe. If we know about some of the incidents that have happened, heaven only knows the incidents that perhaps none of us know about that they've actually saved us from and kept Australians safe from.

I also want to give a shout-out to the new Assistant Minister for Defence, the member for Wills. I say that because I know he was one of former prime minister Kevin Rudd's chief intelligence people, and I know he had a role in 2024 and up to the election as Special Envoy for Social Cohesion. I've had a number of discussions with the member for Wills in relation to security and public safety, and I regard his experience very highly. It's good that we've got people on both sides of the chamber who are very adept in this regard.

I note that the member for Canning, the shadow minister for home affairs, has a deep and abiding interest in this as well. He is a highly regarded and decorated former member of the SAS. We need people like that in our parliament; we truly do.

I've got a ban from Russia for being the deputy prime minister during the Morrison years. I wear that as a badge of honour, actually. I didn't want to go to Moscow, anyway—or anywhere else in Russia, for that matter. If they don't want me, that's fine. But, as the member for New England said, they are amongst us—not just Russians but people who we, quite frankly, don't want to have in our country. They come here under the guise of being visitors and great diplomats et cetera. But they come here to try to subvert people. They come here to this building to sway people to do the wrong thing. We need to be aware of that. The member for New England was, I think, not being alarmist when he said we all, as members of parliament, particularly those who hold ministerial positions, need to be very careful about who we meet, what we say and what we agree to, because there are people out there who would take people of good faith and intentions down as quick as look at them to promote their evil.

The member for New England also mentioned the situation with China circumnavigating Australia. It was for no good reason that China did this. I listened very closely to the defence minister saying, 'Well, it was in open, international waters.' Yes, it was, but why would China be circumnavigating our nation? Why would they be doing live firing exercises in the Tasman Sea off the Sydney coastline for any good reason? This is not good. We need to send the strongest possible advice to our largest trading friends that friends don't do this to one another.

I can well remember when then prime minister Tony Abbott made his 'shirtfront'—

An honourable member: Remarks.

remarks—yes—over the downing of an aircraft by the Russian military, and the next thing we knew was, off the Queensland coast, we had the Russian fleet. Now, Putin obviously wanted to flex his muscles. We've all seen him with the shirt off, pumping out his chest—yeah, good on ya—but this is not behaviour we should be seeing from world leaders and from countries with whom, quite frankly, in this day and age, we should be doing everything we can to promote peace.

We live in a troubled world—we really do. I mentioned AI before. We just have to be on our guard. We have to make sure that we have not only the right defence personnel—in our Navy, Army and Air Force—but the right intelligence officers. We need the right investment to ensure that ASIO and other intelligence and counterintelligence organisations have the right resources and people in the right places right now to ensure they can continue to keep Australians safe.

These bills amend the compulsory questioning powers in the ASIO Act to expand the scope of adult questioning warrants to include sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity in addition to espionage and politically motivated violence including terrorism and acts of foreign interference. I'm sad to say that we have seen examples of every single one of those in recent times, and it is worrying. Not to place too much of a thing on it, but even our parliamentary process was interrupted in question time today by three people protesting—and they shouldn't have.

I'm not against protestors—I am not—but it should not be in our house of democracy when we're trying to debate important topics. At question time, we should not see people standing up and being unruly and disorderly. I do hope that the Speaker finds out who those people are and gives them a lifetime ban. Why muck around? Don't give them a 12-month ban; give them a lifetime ban from this place. They hold up a sign today; what do they do tomorrow if they're allowed to get away with it? If a member has signed those people in—well, whatever the Speaker has at his disposal to admonish that member, he should use, too. Let's remember: they were in the Speaker's gallery. They had to have a ticket to get in there, and that ticket had to be signed off by a member. So I hope that member who signed in those three unruly people is shaking in their boots as I speak.

These bills also amend the eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities to ensure the independence and impartiality of persons appointed to the role. We know that, if we have people questioning those of ill repute, as a nation, we will abide by the international rule of law. We do that always, even with our military. I've been with our military on those parliamentary trips where we've seen our military in action. They take every course of action, legal and otherwise, to ensure what they're doing is the right thing and is covered under international rule of law. The same does not apply to our enemies—it does not.

These bills also introduce additional reporting requirements to ensure the Attorney-General—and I compliment the member for Greenway in her ascension to that role; I think she'll do a fine job—is made aware of any relevant information regarding conduct under a compulsory questioning warrant. It will require that post-charge questioning occurs only before a prescribed authority who is a retired judge and will make the framework permanent by repealing the sunset provision.

We do what we need to do to keep Australians safe. Whether it's a Labor government or a coalition government, we cannot afford to water down any provisions to keep Australians safe. I do have confidence in the government to do the right thing, because the protection of our people is too important not to get right, and we need to make sure we do everything we can in that regard.

Bill 2 also amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to permit the PJCIS to undertake further review of the operation's effectiveness and implications of the framework three years after the commencement of the bill. We have Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security oversight of this. That's important so that parliamentarians get a say along with the National Security Committee and the relevant ministers right up to the Prime Minister. That's the way it should be. I don't go along with the Greens—thank goodness there's only one of them in the House of Representatives—wanting to have all sorts of oversight on these. God help us if ever the Greens get anybody anywhere near the National Security Committee, because then we'd all be in trouble. But I do recommend these bills. They're important, they're necessary, and they will keep Australians safe.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.