Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before, at the hard mark of 11.15 am, on the matter of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, our geography matters and so does our capacity to deter. Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour that must deliver jobs, skills and economic opportunity across our regions and, indeed, across the entire nation. As we build capability, we must ensure communities share in the benefits and that local consultation and investment in community infrastructure proceed in parallel.

Colleagues, technology is moving at pace. The government's investments in advanced platforms and the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator are important starts. But the technology development cycle for many autonomous systems is measured in months, not years. Building stockpiles that sit in warehouses and become obsolete is not an effective use of taxpayers' money. Instead, Australia must support a sovereign industrial base capable of rapid development, production at scale and iterative improvement. That requires a whole-of-society approach: government procurement and incentives, industry partnerships, research institutions and workforce training.

Our aim must be to ensure that the ADF can access the right mix of high-end and mass produced systems when required and that we can scale production quickly in response to changing circumstances. The defence subcommittee's recent report, which was tabled this week, on the 2023-24 Defence annual reportemphasises these points. It highlights the rapid evolution of autonomous technologies and the need to align capability development with Australia's strategic geography. It also underscores that investments in capability must be matched by investments in people—in recruitment, retention, transition programs and services for veterans and families. Insight into defence agencies is incomplete without insight into the experiences of those who serve and those who have served.

This bill recognises that reality. It proposes a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence with the mandate and expertise to examine defence policy, defence capability development, defence procurement, defence operational safety and the welfare of defence personnel and veterans. It balances transparency with the need to handle classified materials securely, drawing on the model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That balance is crucial. Oversight provided by such a committee as this must be meaningful, but it must also be able to protect sensitive information that, if mishandled, could harm national security.

Parliamentary oversight is not an adversarial exercise for its own sake, much as the column inches that are expended on the battles of this place might convey that. Parliamentary oversight at its best is a powerfully constructive mechanism to improve performance, to identify risks and to recommend reforms that deliver better outcomes for the Australian Defence Force and, through them, for us the Australian people. Effective oversight builds public confidence; ensures that taxpayers' money is spent wisely; and ensures that procurement delivers capability on time and on budget, wherever possible, and that operations are conducted with due regard not just to safety but to law.

I've seen where improvements are needed and I've seen where progress is being made. I've seen defence personnel working tirelessly to adapt to new technologies and new strategic demands. I've seen communities eager to partner with Defence, to share in the economic opportunities, the national security uplift and the national pride that capability development brings.

Establishing a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence will allow sustained, specialised scrutiny and constructive recommendations that improve capability, accountability and the lives of those who serve. This bill is a practical, measured step to ensure parliament can meet the challenges of a more contested strategic environment. It will help safeguard our nation, it will help support our service personnel and veterans and it will help to ensure that investments in capability deliver value for the Australian people.

The formation of this committee will enable parliament to ask hard questions. It will enable the parliament to receive classified briefings, where necessary, and to report publicly, where appropriate, so that Australians can have confidence in the institutions that protect them.

Colleagues, this is an important step change from the current structure of the committee that sits as a subcommittee under the auspices of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It is an amendment to the Defence Act of 1903 and inserts new requirements that will enhance the capacity for us to do our work as parliamentarians. Importantly, this bill, which I hope will be supported in the chamber today, is a response to the 2003 report of the Joint Standing and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade subcommittee which called for the implementation of this new joint statutory committee to request and receive those classified information briefings.

The comparison, for those who understand these matters, is with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The fact is that its significance demands very careful attention to the nature of those who are selected to conduct the inquiries. That should be given very careful consideration. That is why this 13-member committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

The men and women of our defence forces deserve the best oversight and support we can provide. They deserve a parliament that's informed, engaged and capable of guiding the nation's defence policy with both wisdom and care. The bill strengthens that capacity. It strengthens our democracy.

Acting Deputy President Polley, as you well know from your experience in the chamber here as a senator for Tasmania and now acting in the role of Deputy President of the Senate for the purposes of this debate, there are important matters that are dealt with in the most careful and serious way in committees and in this parliament.

The role of committees in undertaking the work that cannot be done on the fly in public, in this chamber and the other one, is vital to the nation's security and wellbeing. I think of Anzac commemoration events and the pride that Australians have in the defence of democracy. In the current environment, the defence of the nation requires this step change. This is an important addition to the capacity of our nation to defend itself. I commend the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 to the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that parliament can better fulfil its duty of oversight in the national interest.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't speak long, but I do rise to speak in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. As many other speakers have iterated earlier today, the defence and national security challenges our nation faces today have been unprecedented in at least eight decades. As we scale up the capability and the readiness of our Defence Force, it is critical that there is greater oversight of our spending of money to fund new capability and the timelines that are necessary to acquire that capability.

One of the greatest challenges facing our Defence Force—there are several, one is the amount of money available to it—is capability acquisition. The truth is, Australia has a very poor record when it comes to the acquisition of new capability. We have had far too many Defence projects—this is not a partisan point; this is an institutional point—that have run significantly overbudget and overtime. Too often, in our acquisitions, we have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good, endlessly 'bespoking' and customising platforms rather than acquiring them off the shelf and endlessly seeking to tailor and tinker with proven and trusted capabilities to meet quite peculiar national circumstances. That has led to, over many years and across many governments, Defence projects which have rivalled Snowy 2.0 in terms of their cost overrun and their failure to deliver on time. That's simply a luxury that we can no longer afford in Australia.

If everyone accepts the rhetoric that we face difficult and uncertain strategic times—and I certainly do—then we need to fix this. I do believe that proper scrutiny and accountability to the parliament, which allows for the furnishing of classified information and the proper protection and handling of classified information, will add an important discipline, oversight and accountability mechanism to the billions of dollars of public money that we will be pumping into Defence over the next decade or two.

I don't share the concerns of some of my crossbench colleagues that such a committee, if composed entirely of parties of the government and opposition, will not be able to do a good job. In fact, I think it's quite important that membership of this committee, either by convention or by the bill that's before us, be limited to members of political parties who form the government or opposition, just as we do with the PJCIS, because of the sensitivity of the information that's being handled because of what is a bipartisan basis, in many respects, to the strategic challenges that we face—a viewpoint shared by the government and the opposition—and because I don't think we can risk having political games being played or classified information being misused by people in this parliament who are entitled to have a legitimately different point of view but who do not, basically, share the strategic assessment that underpins the scale-up in the defence forces.

I want to acknowledge and pay credit to some former senators here, most notably the late senator Jim Molan and Senators Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett who have, over many years, advocated for a greater role of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the Defence Force and have shared the frustrations of many that one of the biggest items in our federal budget is not subject to the same scrutiny, discipline and accountability as other items of public spending. There are good reasons for that, but I believe this committee will help address and overcome those. For those reasons, I support this bill, and I do not support the amendments.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, an important and timely reform that will strengthen transparency, accountability and oversight across our defence establishment. This bill amends the Defence Act 1903 to establish a new parliamentary joint committee on defence, the PJCD, modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS. Like the PJCIS, this committee will allow parliamentarians to examine classified matters in a secure setting, ensuring that oversight of the defence policy, expenditure and decision-making is robust, informed and responsible.

The creation of this committee is not just a bureaucratic reform; it is an essential step in modernising Australia's parliamentary oversight of our defence institutions at a time when our strategic environment is becoming more and more complex, uncertain and contested than at any other point since the Second World War. The purpose of this bill is straightforward but significant: to create a formal mechanism through which parliament can oversee and scrutinise Defence decisions—including strategy, planning, capability, development, expenditure and personnel matters—in a secure and structured environment. Why do we need it? Because Australia faces increasingly complex and evolving strategic challenges.

Our Defence Force operates in a rapidly changing region. What we're responding to are the realities of new technologies, shifting alliances, new forms of warfare, cyber information and space. With this complexity comes the need for stronger democratic oversight. The Australian people rightly expect that decisions involving the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars and the potential deployment of Australian men and women in uniform are subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Until now, there has been a gap in our oversight framework. While the PJCIS provides classified oversight for our intelligence agencies, there has been no equivalent mechanism for Defence.

This bill fills that gap. It delivers on a key recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, a recommendation that received broad support from experts and the public alike. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will have broad and meaningful functions. It will oversee the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and key Defence portfolio agencies. Its remit will include oversight of administration and expenditure, capability development, strategic planning, personnel issues and major defence operations, whether warlike or non-warlike.

The committee will also review Defence's response to the royal commissions, such as those relating to veterans' suicides or misconduct, ensuring accountability across the system for the men and women who serve our nation. Importantly, it will examine the performance of key statutory offices, including the Inspector-General of the ADF and the newly established Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator—a critical role as Australia embarks on the AUKUS pathway to nuclear powered submarines.

Let me be clear. This committee will not duplicate the work of the PJCIS. They will continue to oversee our intelligence agencies, including those that fall under the Defence portfolio, such as the Australian Signals Directorate. The PJCD will focus on Defence, broader responsibilities, capabilities, policies and the welfare of our people in uniform. The bill gives the committee the power it needs to do its job properly. It will have the authority to request and consider information and documents relating to its functions and to require witnesses to appear or produce documents. For the first time, a parliamentary defence committee will be empowered to receive and consider classified information, subject of course to stringent safeguards. We recognise that defence often deals with highly sensitive information—operational, technical and strategic information. We understand that. This bill also includes robust provisions to protect that information. It introduces strict criminal offences for unauthorised disclosure of protected material, modelled on the Intelligence Services Act of 2001. These offences apply to committee members, their staff and any other person engaged in the committee's work. Information may only be provided to the committee with ministerial authorisation, and the minister retains the power to issue binding certificates to prevent the disclosure of information that could engage national security or defence operations. These are sensible and balanced safeguards, protecting our nation's interests while enabling meaningful parliamentary oversight.

The composition of the committee will ensure both representation and flexibility. Like the PJCIS, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint 13 members—seven from the government and six from non-government parties—drawn from both houses of parliament. This structure preserves a balance of parliamentary representation while allowing for flexibility, including the option to appoint crossbench members, should the government choose to do so. That flexibility is deliberate. The government recognises that national security should be above partisanship. There will be times when crossbench voices bring valuable perspectives and experience, and this model allows for that possibility.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes strong provisions to safeguard sensitive information. Operationally sensitive material will be protected, and any unauthorised disclosure, whether intentional or reckless, will attract serious criminal penalties. This reflects the approach taken to our existing intelligence oversight framework. Members of the committee will undergo appropriate security vetting and training. The aim is to ensure that our parliamentary oversight processes do not compromise—I repeat: do not compromise—national security while still allowing elected representatives to perform their vital scrutiny function. This is about trust—trust in our institutions, trust in our parliament and trust in the integrity of our democracy. There's been no more important time for that than right now.

Colleagues, we recall that this bill was previously brought before the Senate in July 2024. Unfortunately, it was negated due to disagreement over committee membership. The coalition—well, they were the coalition at that time; now they're divorced and so maybe I shouldn't be using 'coalition'—or the Liberal Party and the Nationals opposed the bill unless membership was limited strictly to government and opposition members. The Greens sought guaranteed crossbench representation. The government did not agree to either proposal. We were disappointed to see the bill defeated. Of course we were. We know how important this committee and the work that they will be doing will be for those who serve this great country in the Defence Force and wear the uniform. Also, at the end of the day, when they put that uniform on, they are protecting every Australian. It was particularly disappointing given that the former shadow defence minister had repeatedly expressed support for the establishment of this very committee, even calling for it to be expedited. Instead of working constructively, the opposition of the day—that was the Liberal Party and the National Party, who aren't in a coalition now—chose, as they normally do, to play politics and political games instead of supporting the establishment last year of this important committee. So, therefore, it has been delayed. That reform, which would have strengthened accountability and transparency across the Defence portfolio, was delayed because of their political games. But this government is not deterred. We have reintroduced this bill with the same flexible and balanced membership model, one that allows for adaptability to the needs of the parliament while maintaining robust oversight. This is not about politics. It's about good governance—I know it was a foreign term for those opposite when they were previously in government.

We strongly believe that this is important legislation that should never be used in a political way to play political games, so we're here again today putting this bill before the Senate. It is largely unchanged from the 2024 version. We believe that this is a bill that should be supported. I'm very proud to support this bill. I'd remind people that changes to the bill include the removal of provisions following the passage of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. The functions of the PJCD now explicitly include oversight of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. Additionally, the bill updates the definition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to align with the new Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025. These are practical and technical changes that ensure consistency across our legislative framework. This bill is about strengthening the health of our democracy. It is about ensuring that the Defence Force, one of our nation's most powerful and respected institutions, remains accountable to the parliament and, through it, to the Australian people.

We ask a great deal of the men and women of the ADF. As someone whose family has proudly served in every branch, whether it was the Air Force, the Navy or the Army, and as someone who comes from Tasmania, where we punch well above our weight in enlisting to protect our country, I can say that this bill is of critical importance to my state and to our country. Most importantly, at this point in time, we have to demonstrate that we will do what's necessary to protect our democracy. We are there to support the men and women in uniform. We trust them with our security, we trust them with our sovereignty and we trust them with our lives. That's what we do when men and women put on the uniform. They lay down their lives to protect us, just as men and women before them have done. In turn, they and the Australian people deserve a system that ensures defence decisions are transparent, well governed and subject to proper oversight.

Establishing this committee brings defence into line with the rigorous oversight already in place for our intelligence agencies, as I've said before. This is a practical and sensible reform that ensures our parliamentary structures keep pace with the complexity of our strategic environment. The oversight is fitting for these times that we now live in. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence strengthens accountability, modernises our oversight framework and ensures that decisions about defence, our people, our strategy and our resources are made in an open and transparent way and under the watchful eye of this parliament. This is reform that strengthens our democracy, respects our armed forces and reflects the Labor Party's longstanding belief that transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of a good government. We demonstrate every day that we are here to provide an open, transparent and good government, because we are focused on the things that matter to Australians. There's nothing more important than the defence of our country, our people and our democracy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the senators who've contributed to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. The bill represents a significant step in strengthening parliamentary oversight on defence. It is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and it seeks to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise capability development, strategic planning and operational decisions. The committee will access classified information, giving parliament the tools for secure, informed oversight in a challenging strategic environment. The committee complements existing oversight mechanisms, including Senate estimates. It closes a critical gap in classified scrutiny, and it also monitors the performance of defence regulators and the government's response to the royal commission's findings.

The membership arrangements of this committee reflect the approach taken in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The success of this longstanding and well-respected committee is why it is a key model that we are using to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. It allows for the effective, balanced oversight of defence matters by both government and non-government members.

This bill reflects our government's commitment to transparency, accountability and stronger decision-making in defence. I commend the bill.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.