Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this debate in relation to the appropriations bills as they concern the Attorney-General's portfolio. I want to speak firstly about the responsibility of the government and of the Attorney-General and the portfolio for which he has responsibility to keep Australians safe. We live in a dangerous world. There are terrorism and other threats facing Australia, and foreign actors are launching cyberattacks against our country and agencies and businesses within it regularly. Just today, we learned about the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner having had its own data accessed by hackers. This is the agency that monitors privacy breaches caused by cyberattacks. According to media reports, it is under attack itself through a third party, so I ask the Attorney: What actions have the government taken to address these concerning reports?

It is noteworthy that this budget reduces funding for frontline agencies in a number of ways, frontline agencies which are charged with keeping Australians safe. This budget cuts almost $26 million from our intelligence agencies, from the funding which is provided for officials for parliamentary departments and new oversight mechanisms. It redirects almost $130 million from the Defence budget, money allocated to pay for ongoing inquiries into Afghanistan. It's curious that this government would take money away from the defence forces at a time when it is widely acknowledged that Australia faces the most complex strategic environment since the Second World War.

One of the noteworthy features of this budget is that the measure that commits to protecting Australians from homegrown terrorism lasts for just two years. We have had minister after minister making much of the fact that there were expiring budget measures committed to by the previous government. Apparently it was an outrage that in every area there were budget measures we had not provided funding in perpetuity, so this government will not be required to make any decisions of any kind. But what is remarkable is that, having criticised expiring budget measures up hill and down dale, this government has now produced a budget which contains an expiring measure—just two years of funding—in relation to the threat of homegrown terrorists. Apparently somehow the threat of homegrown terrorists will miraculously cease at the end of two years. I ask how the Attorney-General: How can this possibly be justified in view of the principle which apparently is articulated and committed to by ministers in this government that any expiring budget measure will automatically and inherently be condemned? If you believe what ministers have repeatedly told the House in recent weeks, that is the principle to which they hold firm. So I ask the Attorney-General: How can that principle be reconciled with the fact that this particular measure expires after two years?

I want to turn to the Voice. The previous coalition government committed $31.8 million for local and regional voices, for reasons that go to, as our leader and many of us have explained, our belief that giving local communities effective representation, particularly remote communities, is likely to be a way in which there can be greater responsibility achieved by government to the direct frontline concerns of remote communities. That is the reason why we committed $31.8 million in our last budget to local regional voices. But, curiously, this budget commits to spending only $20 million in this area, so I ask the Attorney-General: What's being done with the rest of the funding? Does this indicate, once again, that this government is in fact equivocal at best in its commitment to local and regional voices, about which we have heard surprisingly little over the time since this government has come to power, notwithstanding local and regional voices being an important element of what was recommended in the Calma-Langton report?

This budget commits to spending legal fees on 'a number of international legal actions', but won't disclose the amounts. I ask the Attorney-General: why is this? There is an additional $95 million pumped into one department, for public servants—just one department. Meanwhile, funding for programs like the Lighthouse program in the Family Court drops off a cliff. Attorney, will the government commit to further funding the Lighthouse program past 2026-27?

See this speech in context