Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. Yesterday evening a division on amendment (1) on sheet 3472 moved by Senator Shoebridge was deferred. The vote on that amendment will be held now. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

My question is to the minister. Minister, is it intended that this new secret committee would be consulted before Australia supported—I don't know; I'll think of something at random—an illegal war by the United States and Israel on Iran? Would it be intended that the committee be consulted before the Australian government adopted a position on—again, just to pick something at random—the Albanese government supporting an illegal war from Israel and the United States on Iran? Would it be intended to be consulted in those circumstances?

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

The senator asks essentially about war powers. Those who have served in this chamber for some time will know that this is an issue that has been well canvassed in this Senate. Most recently, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade undertook an inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making. This was a serious piece of work, and the government has responded to that work. I think Senator Shoebridge probably understands the parameters of that response, because he's asked questions about this in other forums before. But, for other senators, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that it is appropriate that decisions to enter into international armed conflict and the deployment of the ADF overseas remain a prerogative of the executive. In practice, that is a power that is exercised collectively by the National Security Committee of the cabinet, and that was recognised by the committee in its recommendations on 31 March 2023.

Senator Shoebridge's question went to a series of hypotheticals. He seeks to speculate whether, if this committee was formed, these kinds of matters would be referred to the committee. I can simply say that the powers of the committee are set out. Equally, the government's approach to decision-making in relation to international armed conflict has also been set out in the response that we made to that inquiry undertaken by the joint standing committee. I can add, of course, that our government acknowledges that the executive prerogative can and must coexist with the important role that parliament has in holding the executive to account for decisions taken. There must be an appropriate balance between enabling the government of the day to respond to challenges to our national interest and security whilst ensuring that parliament has effective mechanisms to examine and debate those decisions.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister, for the response to Senator Shoebridge's question. Your response, however, begs the question of whether the executive is going to make decisions without the oversight of parliament or indeed without even consulting this very special, highly acclaimed parliamentary committee before not just participating in some type of conflict or military intervention but offering support. Does this committee have any insight or ability to know and to ask the question of the executive as to whether a particular military intervention is even legal? What we've seen in the last 48-to-72 hours in the Middle East is an attack launched by the United States and Israel that is indeed illegal under international law. And every time an Australian journalist has asked the Prime Minister, the defence minister or anybody else in the government whether this new Trump led war is legal, they get dismissed, and the question gets deferred off to the United States. I don't need to ask the United States whether this is legal or not. Every legal expert in the world is saying it isn't. The United Nations has said it's not. Your government knows it's not, and that is why you refuse to even engage with the question. What is the point of having a parliamentary committee of such supreme power and importance if they can't even get some basic parameters about whether Australia is backing an illegal war or not?

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

There are many aspects of the contribution made by Senator Hanson-Young that are simply inaccurate and incorrect, and I welcome the opportunity to correct those statements in this response now. Let's start with the government's position around accountability and transparency in relation to deployment of armed forces. As I've already indicated in response to a question from Senator Shoebridge, we consider that that power appropriately remains with the executive, and there are a range of good reasons for that, and it is entirely consistent with the constitutional arrangements which are set out in section 61 of the Constitution.

As I said in my earlier answer, that is entirely compatible with the role of the parliament in scrutinising any such decision. The government has agreed that a ministerial statement in both houses of parliament is an important way to improve transparency in relation to any such decision, and that has been set out in the Memorandum on Government Conventions Relating to Overseas Armed Conflict Decision Making. So, Senator Hanson-Young, what is proposed by our government, our policy, is in fact not just to brief a committee but to make a public statement in the parliament that sets out the reasons and allows the parliament to engage with what would be a very important question for the Australian public and for Australian parliamentarians.

In relation to the committee's role, the committee's functions are set out really clearly in the legislation. They are also set out in the memorandum of understanding. They include: examining and being apprised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts, and monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations domestically and internationally. So we do have a difference of opinion, Senator, between our parties. The Greens political party has one view, and you're very welcome to express it this morning, about decisions on overseas armed conflict. We have a different view. We've engaged seriously with the work that was done by the joint standing committee on this question. We have published our response. Indeed, as I've indicated, we've published the memorandum, which sets out the conventions that our government will adopt should we take decisions around overseas armed conflict.

This is all laid out very transparently. So allusions that are designed to scare—about secrecy—and references to a lack of transparency couldn't be more wrong. The government has set out deliberately—and, frankly, independently of any contribution made by the Greens—our approach to this question. It's a question we take seriously. It's one we have proactively engaged with in government. If you wish to examine the public statements that have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister and others about this, they are all on the record.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the minister for the answer. The government in previous debate on the importance of this committee argued that the reason this committee is so special, the reason this committee is supreme, is that it has access to information and will operate in secret. Now, I might have a different understanding of the English language than the minister, but operating in secret seems to me to be an absolute lack of transparency. That is precisely why we've just moved an amendment to try to at least have a broader representation of the parliament on this committee, because we know that when it's the Labor Party and the coalition operating in secret—behind closed doors, away from the public view, without parliamentary scrutiny—bad things happen. All you need to do is ask members of the Australian community whether they trust members of the Labor Party and members of the Liberal Party to operate in secret, behind closed doors, in the best interests of the community. I'll tell you what, a lot of people out there in our community would say no, because the tried and tested examples continue to show that, when there is no sunlight and when there is no transparency, governments and opposition colluding together is bad for the public.

In this situation, we're talking about the most serious of discussions, the most serious of decisions, the most serious of scrutiny of intelligence. That is in relation to whether countries are supporting military action or intervention or not. What types of resources are being used to support overseas military activities? So spare me the lecture around transparency, when the whole purpose of this committee—of why it is so supreme—is because it is secret. That is the whole purpose.

I do have another question for the minister. That is this: does the minister agree that the current bombarding of innocent civilians and infrastructure and buildings in Iran and around the Middle East is indeed legal?

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

Again, Senator Hanson-Young, your contribution just now makes a series of assertions that are simply wrong. This committee exists to augment the existing scrutiny arrangements that exist around defence. Many members of the Greens political party attend estimates and ask questions in public of Defence officials. There are also a range of oversight bodies which publish reports about their investigations into the activity of the agencies that sit within the Defence portfolio, including the ADF. This committee adds to those—augments them. It doesn't detract from any of those other functions.

What I will say is that it is often the case that there are sensitive questions that can't appropriately be discussed in public. There are good reasons for that. They go to our national security. They go to the safety of our personnel. Senator Hanson-Young, your party may think, may wish to make the case, that every operational detail about our servicemen and servicewomen in any environment should be spoken about publicly in this chamber or should be spoken about publicly at estimates, but that is not a position that our government accepts. Our government accepts that there are some things that do need to be treated as confidential and classified, because it is in our national interest for that to be so. It goes directly to the safety of our personnel in many cases.

What this committee does is allow members of this committee to engage with material that is secret or classified for some purpose and to do so in a secure environment. It puts the appropriate protections around that. In that, it does mirror the operations of PCIS. This is a difference of opinion between our party and yours. I've had the privilege of serving on PJCIS and I can tell you that the debate that occurred within that forum when I was a member, often in public, saw robust examination of important questions, supported by access to classified information that was provided in an appropriate secret environment.

On this, we do differ, because the Green political party, as far as I can tell, has never really acknowledged that there is any genuine threat to national security that requires a response from our national security community. I've never heard any of you say that in this chamber, and you're welcome to do so now if you think it to be the case. We take the security of Australia seriously. We consider that the bill before the parliament now, before this chamber, adds an important piece to the architecture of oversight that exists around the ADF and the broader agencies in the Defence portfolio. It's why we brought it forward. I look forward to the bill passing so that it may scrutinise key questions that, frankly, can't and shouldn't be scrutinised in a public environment.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, there is no suggestion that all information is to be, you know, posted on Facebook. You seem to be arguing that it's either that or total secrecy. Our contention here is that you have chosen, with the cosy club between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, that only you, the chosen few, get to make these decisions, get to have a look at what's really going on and get to make the judgement. My proposition is that the Australian people call BS on that—that you are not trusted to monitor yourselves and that you are not trusted to just sit there and collude, year after year after year.

We know, in relation to the existing joint committee, the cosiness between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—that there has been only one report in 20 years that hasn't been unanimous. That's testing the proposition? That's having robust debate, is it? And this is what people are talking about. The collusion between the major parties is continuing today with this piece of legislation and the attitude that—despite the fact that there is a growing parliament, and diversity of voices and representation, and growing concern in the Australian community—that should all be ignored, and that, because it has always been the case that Labor and Liberal can collude on military operations, information and decisions, we should all just roll over.

Of course, we are having this debate at a very prescient time, when the world is watching the horrors in Iran, the bombs falling in Lebanon, airports around the Middle East being shut and Australian citizens stranded, for a war that is being led by Donald Trump. And we have the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Liberal Party and One Nation all saying: 'It's fine. The US said it's fine, so we'll just follow.' No wonder people are sick and tired of the secrecy and the cosy relationships, and, of course, the collusion between the major parties—the war parties. You're not the major parties; you're the war parties.

We have seen this story before. We saw what happened when the Australian government just followed suit with the United States in Iraq. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. Dozens of Australian defence personnel lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands of citizens were killed. There were decades of further unrest, suffering and oppression. All you need to do is ask any mother or schoolgirl in Afghanistan how they feel right now about the US led intervention in Afghanistan and all the promises of hope and freedom. History is repeating itself again. And we have no excuse to be ignorant about this. Donald Trump, as President of the United States, is making it crystal clear how callous he is prepared to be, how irresponsible he is prepared to be, and how he does not care about the innocent lives of mothers, of fathers, of babies, of children, in his quest to drop bombs.

I find it extraordinary that our government here in Australia, the Albanese government, was the first to jump on board with this bombing from Donald Trump. I find it extraordinary that the Australian Labor Party has swung in behind this atrocity, this blatant abuse of international law—dismissal of international law. We have Democrats in the United States showing more opposition than the Australian Labor Party are.

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

Republicans.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got Republicans in the United States condemning what is happening. Where is the spine? Where is the forethought? Talk about, 'Shoot now; ask questions later.' The world is in a terribly fragile, complex situation, and the last thing we need to be doing is pumping up the egos of erratic, irresponsible, nasty bullies like Donald Trump.

I've listened to the words from the Australian government ministers over the last 48 hours: 'We've asked those questions of the United States, and we're just doing this.' You do realise this is a war being launched in one of the most volatile regions on the planet? It's not just bombs being dropped on schools in Iran; the entire region is now a tinderbox, and Australia has a responsibility to say, 'No, we're not having anything to do with it.' The lack of moral courage is staggering. It makes me feel sick, frankly—and many other Australians as well—to hear the defence minister weasel his way out of answering direct questions about what is being done from Australia, from the Pine Gap base, to facilitate the bombings that are killing innocent children, mothers and fathers and keeping Australians stranded overseas, separated from their families.

I know the government would prefer we just didn't ask these questions and we didn't have this debate. I get it; it's uncomfortable. Well, war is messy, and it requires questions. If you don't have the ticker and the courage to respond and to be honest with the Australian people, you don't have the courage to hold the decision-making solely among yourselves—and certainly not in secret.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.