Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills, who is also the chair of the PJCIS. I don't like to come into this place with just talking points. I listened very closely to what he said, and I'll adjust what I say in reply, because I think that's the duty that we all have in this place. He said some things that gave some comfort, I thought, and he deserves credit for that.

I will start by reiterating the role of this important committee. It's an important one. I don't serve on the committee, but I'm glad that it is there. It has three main functions. The first is to provide oversight of Australian intelligence agencies by reviewing their administration and expenditure. The second is to build bipartisan support for national security legislation by amending national security bills introduced to parliament. Sometimes that involves quite technical legal work. It's easy to focus on the intelligence and national security roles of the agencies, but how they interact with our laws and regulations is of utmost importance. Some of those can lead to really sensitive and difficult interactions with our court system. That's not easy, because we have principles of open justice that sometimes clash with some other principles of need to know. They're not easy, and we have to preserve both.

The third is ensuring that national security legislation remains necessary, proportionate and effective by conducting statutory reviews, because, in the end, our primary duty is to keep our nation safe, but we must never forget that we have civilian control over that, whether it's the military or national security intelligence agencies. That's very important in a democracy or, indeed, any other form of government—that there is civilian control. That is why this committee is quite important.

The member for Wills did, quite rightly, note that there is a unique dissenting report. In fact, there hasn't been one put for 17 years. That was a fact that happened with disappointment from this side as well—we wish it didn't. It seems to me, as an observer listening to the member for Wills, one of the reasons that that occurred is there wasn't the consultation and communication there otherwise is and there should have been. When you analyse conflict and disagreement, whether it's in a family, in a court or in a parliament, there is usually a healthy dose of miscommunication. And, if there's miscommunication, the onus is on both those who should have communicated and those who were there to listen. I have no doubt that that is a factor here. But we are the opposition, the other side is the government. The onus is on you to communicate better, and, if there's anything you can take out from this, it is that there should have been better communication.

I also thank the members who are in our national security and intelligence agencies. Unlike those who've served in the military and do get acknowledged on Remembrance Day and on Anzac Day and on other days, as they should, they don't get that. Whether it's overseas or domestically, they put their lives on the line, they work irregular hours and they generally don't get our thanks for that. It's important that we thank them for the work that they do, because the times that we are kept safe or that our national interest is advanced doesn't make the papers and it doesn't even get discussed in this place, but we are always very grateful for that. That is an important thing to acknowledge.

The other thing I'd like to do is to focus particularly on where we disagree because it just comes to one part. It's the part where the membership of the committee will go from 11 to 13. The member for Wills has said that there is no change to the power of the Prime Minister to appoint members from the House or the Senate, and many others have given contributions about whether the members should be from parties of government. I understand that argument, that there is a potential for hubris in that argument because none of us should have a claim on being of government—we have to earn that right—so I won't go there.

I will say this: when it comes to protecting our secrets, whether it's a national intelligence agency or otherwise, the need-to-know principle is just as important about whether you have a right to know or you're cleared to know. The reason the need-to-know principle is important is because it is a human instinct to think that if I tell one person a secret I've still kept it. We all would have heard times when someone has said: 'Hey, I've got this secret. Just between you and me, here it is.' And they think: I've still preserved my duties in keeping that secret. That's what humans do. There are studies that have been done on that. And then that one person thinks they have a right to tell one other person, and on and on it goes. So the fewer people who know things the better.

We saw that. I think one of the most impressive parts of the AUKUS negotiation was how tightly held that was. One of the reasons it was so tightly held was because very few people knew about it. I'm sure there were people who in executive positions or were in agencies who were quite grumpy about that, but that is extremely important, because the fewer people who know about things the better.

So, it is self-evident that in moving the numbers from 11 to 13 that risk expands just a little bit further, and you don't need to make comment about who that might be—I don't think that's fair. But just that mere movement of numbers increases risk, and we should be aware of that. Then this question has to be asked: why has that been done? I listened carefully to the member for Wills and I didn't hear a sufficient answer to that. Why is it from 11 to 13? Why is it not to 15 or 17? Let's get everyone involved in the PJCIS. I think expanding it creates risk, and it hasn't been justified. Others have said it may have something to do with internal politics. There was nothing that I heard from the member for Wills that pointed to that, but we will see.

So we'll see, if and when this passes, who has been appointed and why, and there should be careful scrutiny of that. Again, that may not be the case. I hope it's the case, but, because of the lack of communication, the opposition is entitled to ask that question and is entitled to be a little bit suspicious. Because we've agreed on just about everything bar this, I won't use my full time, but I will just reiterate the importance of this committee. I gratefully acknowledge the people who serve in our intelligence agencies and highlight the inherent risk that comes with expanding this. It compromises, or at least potentially compromises, the need-to-know principle, and we will see where it goes from here.

See this speech in context