David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. Decisions about defence are among the most consequential decisions this parliament makes. They go to the lives of Australian service men and women and to hundreds of billions of dollars of public money committed over generations.

In a healthy democracy, decisions of that magnitude must never rest solely with the executive. They must be subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, genuine accountability and democratic oversight. For that reason, I support in principle the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. Defence policy now reaches deeply into our economy, our industry policy, our alliances and our sovereignty. Nowhere is it clearer than in Canberra, where we are proud to be home to the Australian Defence Force Academy, Duntroon, the Department of Defence and many innovative SMEs in the defence industry.

It's frankly extraordinary that until now Defence has not been subject to standalone, dedicated parliamentary scrutiny comparable to that which exists in many other democracies. However I want to be very clear my support for this bill is conditional. I will only support this legislation if amendments are passed to guarantee crossbench representation on the committee. Nearly one in three Australians vote for someone other than the major parties. If the recent split of the coalition remains, then this number will be even higher. Their voices deserve to be reflected in the mechanisms of scrutiny, particularly when the stakes are this high. In fact, without that safeguard, this committee risks entrenching executive power rather than scrutinising it.

Parliamentary committees exist to hold governments to account, not to shield them from uncomfortable questions. A committee dominated by the major parties, nominated through processes that exclude independents and minor parties by design, undermines parliamentary sovereignty rather than strengthening it. This is not about weakening our defence; it is about strengthening the legitimacy of decisions made in its name. We have seen time and again what happens when defence decisions are made behind closed doors, insulated from any challenge. Cost overruns, capability delays, governance failures and procurement blowouts are not abstract risks; they are well documented realities.

Parliamentary scrutiny is not an impediment to national security; it's a safeguard for it—and AUKUS is a powerful example. Whatever view one takes of the agreement itself, it represents a commitment of extraordinary scale and consequence. The principle at stake is simple: decisions of this magnitude must be able to withstand independent, fearless scrutiny. Public trust is not built through secrecy or enforced consensus; it's built when Australians know that the right questions are being asked by people who are not constrained by party discipline or political self-protection.

There are times when information must remain classified. This bill rightly recognises that. But secrecy in the national interest is not the same thing as secrecy for political convenience. A properly constituted joint committee, one that includes crossbench members, can respect security while still upholding democratic accountability. If amended to guarantee genuine crossbench participation, this bill can strengthen parliamentary sovereignty, improve Defence decision-making and restore public confidence in how power is exercised in this place.

Without those amendments, it will be a missed opportunity. Our parliament deserves processes that reflect its composition, and Australians deserve to know that decisions taken in their name are being tested not just rubber stamped. For those reasons, I urge colleagues to amend this bill to include crossbench support, and I indicate that only then will I support the bill.