David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 3471:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members:

(a) 7 Government members, including at least:

(i) 2 Senators; and

(ii) 2 members of the House of Representatives; and

(b) 6 non-Government members:

(i) 2 Opposition Senators; and

(ii) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives; and

(iii) 1 Senator who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition; and

(iv) 1 member of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition.

Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.

This amendment would expand the membership of the committee to expressly include crossbench membership from each of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I know there's a separate amendment being proposed by One Nation that has a different formula for extending crossbench membership on the committee, but I'll speak to the Greens amendment.

It was extraordinary, what we heard in the contributions from both Labor and the Liberal Party in this debate, in a denial of pretty much every basic principle of democracy, which is meant to be a robust exchange of views where you're not scared of disagreements. A robust debate where disagreements are played out is actually how our democracy is designed to work. You test ideas and you allow people into a chamber who have a contrary view to yours, and you have to win the contest of ideas. That's what our democracy is meant to be.

But what we heard from both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that they are deliberately establishing this committee so that anybody with a contrary view on either the strategic direction for Australian defence or on which particular international grifter should be favoured with the next arms deal—you could name the former Liberal or Labor defence minister who is out there selling weapons to any taker. Anyone who objects to the latest Christopher Pyne enrichment program will be excluded from this committee because the Liberal and Labor parties don't like their opinions or views. It's directly contrary to how democracy is meant to work. It just sums up how little valued this committee will be at the end of the day.

This amendment won't fix it entirely. It will still be dominated by the war parties. They will still be patting each other on the back, thinking about which mate to give a contract to, and working out how much they can bow and grovel to Donald Trump. They will still be the majority of the committee. But at least there might be one voice in there testing them—I hope it won't be me; it could be Senator Stewart—and actually suffering through the insufferable on behalf of the Australian people, to at least put some contrary voice in that space.

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

I indicate that the government won't be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge on behalf of the Australian Greens. I should also indicate, as a person who had the very great privilege of serving on PJCIS, that Senator Shoebridge's account of the operations of that committee couldn't be further from the truth. Had he observed some of the many hearings held in public, he would have seen the entirely robust way that those committee members approached their responsibilities and duties. It is on the basis of the quite important role that that committee has played over time that the government seeks to emulate that approach in establishing this committee. We're grateful for the support of the Liberals in this regard.

The government's approach to the membership, in particular, models that committee. The legislation, as with the legislation for the PJCIS, makes no commitments that would limit or commit the appointment of particular members. The government intends that appointments would continue to be made in accordance with the legislation and longstanding parliamentary practice. Consistent with that approach, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of recognised political parties, will appoint up to 13 members to the PJCD.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard some remarkable statements in my life, but to suggest that the PJCIS has robust debate—there was a landmark moment some time last year when, for the first time in 20 years, there was actually a dissenting opinion. I think it's only happened once. Everyone thought the sky would fall down, because the members of the PJCIS had been in agreement and had had unanimous recommendations every single time—for two decades! That's the kind of robust debate you get in North Korean politics. That's the kind of robust debate you get in Donald Trump's America. If you speak out against him, you get sued. That's the kind of robust debate that Labor wants in this committee. To suggest that that is robust debate is genuinely embarrassing.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't take that as a question. Senator Chandler?

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has been foreshadowed in our contributions on the second reading debate on this bill, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment from the Greens. Defence demands continuity, competence and bipartisanship—not politics. The new committee must follow the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and membership should rightly be limited to government and opposition parties, as has been the convention for more than two decades in relation to the PJCIS. We believe that appointing the Greens or Independents would politicise classified defence matters and undermine trust with our allies.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence. I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential.

There's a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn't it? One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee.

My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically. There's a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government's version of the truth. We're seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That's the purpose. It's a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.

Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they're just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It's not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation's many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers' benefit and for the nation's benefit.

Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn't that cosy?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Doesn't that make you feel safe?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You're leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn't vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips?

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

That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community.

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

The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee's work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we're having in the Senate right now.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3471 be agreed to.

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

I have a question for the minister. Minister, in a democracy, what's the justification to exclude elected representatives from a committee, particularly in Australia, where we see one in three primary votes not going to the major parties? What's the justification for a government putting in legislation that we are excluding anyone who is part of this one-third of elected representatives that the Australian people decided to elect? Surely this undermines trust in government, in institutions. As a government, you should be leading the country, not just trying to entrench a historical two-party system. I'd really love an explanation.

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

Senator, your question is based on a false premise. The legislation does not operate as you describe. The legislation is very clear about membership. It allows for the appointment of government members and non-government members. This allows for flexibility, and prime ministers will exercise their judgement about the appointment of non-government members in consultation with leaders of the recognised political parties within the parliament.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, who selects the additional members?

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

This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, as Senator David Pocock said, it's a stitch-up.

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

I think it's an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:

(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and

(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and

(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and

(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party.

Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.

(3) In this section:

minority party means a party that:

(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and

(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3472:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of section 110ABB, add:

(4) To avoid doubt, this Part is not intended to limit or prevent in any way the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, otherwise than under this Part by an entity other than the Committee.

This amendment would say, for abundant clarity, that whatever amendments are made through this bill to parliamentary procedure and oversight would have no impact on existing parliamentary oversight procedures. I can already see the near future, and I can tell you now that, if this bill is passed, we'll be in Senate estimates, asking questions of Defence about why on earth they're spending $45 billion to buy six boats in Adelaide that are undergunned, won't arrive for a couple of decades and will only enrich their mates, and we'll be told: 'You can't ask that question in Senate estimates. We have our secret Defence committee, where they have robust discussions about this in dark rooms, away from the public gaze.' When we ask questions like, 'How many billion dollars are you giving to Donald Trump today for AUKUS, what on earth are we going to get for it and is there a promise we might actually get a boat at the end of it?' we'll get the answer from Moriarty mark 2 along the lines of: 'Well, Senator, you know full well that this would seriously impact national security.'

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. It being 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate.