Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that Australia and the world face the gravest geopolitical instability since the end of World War II;

(2) recalls that foreign interference remains the greatest immediate threat to Australia's sovereignty and security;

(3) notes:

(a) that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and the so-called axis of resistance continues to perpetrate malicious activities against critical infrastructure, public and private companies, agencies and democratic institutions across the world, including in Australia; and

(b) with concern that despite the urgent national security threats facing the nation, the Government has failed to:

(i) develop and deliver space defence and industry strategy, instead slashing funding for critical programs and global partnerships;

(ii) develop and deliver a comprehensive border security strategy, instead presiding over the worst border crisis since it was last in government;

(iii) engage industry to develop and deliver a strategy to secure and strengthen the supply of fuel, food, water, pharmaceuticals, industrial materials and critical minerals; and

(iv) quickly and adequately address the risks and opportunities associated with artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and other emerging technologies aligned with our Australia-United Kingdom-United States pillars;

(4) calls on the Government to expeditiously develop and implement a comprehensive national security strategy which:

(a) engages all levels of government, all areas of the public and private sector, and all members of the public through consultation and review;

(b) addresses the issues of security in food, water, fuel, pharmaceuticals, industrial materials, critical minerals, and technology;

(c) addresses the issues of skilled workforce development and recruitment, digital literacy and online safety, cyber security, and resilience in homes, businesses, communities, agencies and institutions;

(d) addresses issues highlighted in the broad and public consultation process and delineated in a national security strategy consultation paper and roadmap; and

(e) commences no later than January 2027; and

(5) further acknowledges and pays tribute to the late Senator Jim Molan AO DSC for his significant work on, and advocacy for, a 'grand strategy' or 'nation security strategy' to this end.

There is no doubt that we are now living in a world which has not seen this sort of geopolitical instability since the end of the Second World War. I don't think there is too much doubt about that from anybody. The late, great Senator Jim Molan said this:

Australia is operating in a strategy-free environment. Even more than tanks and ships and planes, Australia needs a strategy and a government that can deliver it.

I want to pay tribute to the late, great Jim Molan, who worked so assiduously in his public life as a parliamentarian and long before it. I specifically note the work he did to bring national attention to the need for a national security strategy.

We know from the threat assessments of Director-General of Security of ASIO Mike Burgess in February this year and last year that foreign interference and espionage have become the No. 1 threat in this country, more so than even terrorism. Foreign interference, foreign interference and espionage are being done on our shores and from offshore, attacking us as we speak. Our critical infrastructure as a nation and the vital businesses that provide that to Australians are under constant attack from governments, such as the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, North Korea and Iran, at unprecedented rates. These countries and others are constantly testing our capability to defend the critical infrastructure that we have in this country.

As Jim has talked about in the past, there's no point having a wonderful defence strategy if you don't have an overarching national security strategy. A national defence strategy is just one element of a national security strategy. In this day and age, when we are being attacked particularly from a cyber perspective, we need to have that overall, encompassing, whole-of-society approach. We need to ensure that our ADF is at its best to be able to defend this nation, and we need to be able to defend all of our critical infrastructure and private industry that provides defence manufacturing. These things are critical.

Sadly, we know that this government is asleep at the wheel in relation to defence. They scrapped the $1 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation. They scrapped it. When I was in the US last year, there were US officials coming up to me and speaking to me off the record, absolutely incredulous as to why this Labor government would scrap the construction of four satellites. The first time Australia would have that sort of capability is now dead. This government has overseen $80 billion in cuts to defence. They are absolutely asleep at the wheel when it comes to border security. There is a lot more to border security than just having Border Force, and this government clearly is asleep at the wheel, as we've seen with the NZYQ case, which involved hundreds of people being released into the community. Of course, we're now seeing people coming from Gaza without appropriate security checks.

This government needs to get cracking on AUKUS pillar II to increase the technology that comes from that. It needs to ensure that our food, our fuel and our skilled workforce have the sort of security that would only come from an all-encompassing, community-wide national security strategy that involves state and local governments across the country. Only a national government can provide that sort of leadership. Sadly, this lot are asleep at the wheel. I implore the government to look very seriously at this. It's an important project. It's something that Jim Molan pushed for a long time and it's something that I have been pushing for a long time.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder to the motion?

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to commence with some remarks on the motion moved by the member for Fisher by joining him in paying tribute, as he did at the end of the motion, to Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC. As members will be aware, Senator Molan had a long and distinguished military career, serving in the Australian Army for more than 40 years and reaching the rank of Major General. He served in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia, Germany, the United States and Iraq. He was made an Officer of the Order of Australia. Senator Molan was a great Australian, and may he rest in peace.

We live in a world where nations seek to increase their access to resources and capital. There's nothing wrong with that; all nations want to increase their resources and their capital, but some of the nations that were mentioned earlier by the member for Fisher are looking to do so doing in an illegal way and through immoral means. We only have to observe recent events in Ukraine to see the devastating impact this can have on a population that has been invaded. Even though there is an embargo on Russia, we know and we can see how they're still getting some of their products out illegally through some of these rogue nations, including Iran and a whole range of others. This is something that's really worrying the EU at the moment.

There is an enormous impact on a population that has been invaded. Even though, in World War II, we were never invaded, we came incredibly close to it in your neck of the words, in the Northern Territory, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. We know that Darwin was bombed and that there was a real enemy on our shores. We have to do everything we can to stop invasions, like Russia's invasion of Ukraine and other invasions that we've seen around the world. We have to ensure that such illegal and inappropriate things do not happen.

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon, as I said. Last month I attended a commemorative service in Cyprus for the 50th anniversary of the illegal Turkish invasion in Cyprus. This illegal invasion is still a tremendous source of pain for so many people. Even after 50 years, there are still 40,000 foreign troops on the soil of a sovereign country. Certainly, Turkiye has to work out which side of the fence it's on. I know they're members of NATO, but, at the same time, they're getting extremely close with the nations that the member for Fisher mentioned—Russia, Iran and many other nations.

As the National Defence Strategy released in April 2024 confirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, and we do so at a time when Australia's economic connection to the world has never been greater. We need to develop a more integrated and focused Australian Defence Force so we can defend Australia and our immediate region, protect our economic connection to the world and contribute with our partners to regional security and stability. Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, through the AUKUS agreement, is fundamental to this. It will ensure we have a defence force with a much greater capacity to deter a potential adversary's attempts to project power against Australia.

Our government is absolutely committed to securing a strong and safe future for all Australians. When we came to government, Australians were more vulnerable to cyberattacks than citizens of any other developed country. Too many Australian citizens and businesses were left out in the cold by the former coalition government, which had fallen asleep at the wheel on cybersecurity. We know this complacency opened the door for attacks that have compromised the data of millions of Australians and left Australia years behind where we should be in cybersecurity.

So this Albanese Labor government is doing the hard work in cybersecurity that should have started a decade ago. We now have a dedicated Minister for Cyber Security in cabinet and have appointed Australia's first National Cyber Security Coordinator. Working with industry and the community, the Albanese government's 2023-2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy sets out how we're making Australia a harder target, how we'll help Australians bounce back from cyberattacks and how we're fighting back against cybercriminals. I know no country can reduce cyberattack risks to zero, but these changes will significantly strengthen Australia's cyber defences.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by my friend the member for Fisher regarding the current environment of geopolitical instability that we face and the fundamental failure of this Albanese government to comprehend, grasp and act in necessary ways to keep Australians safe.

The member for Fisher and I both serve on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and National Security and also the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. That is no coincidence because, as we know, social media has become one of the principal vectors for both foreign interference from abroad and radicalisation and extremism within our own borders.

Exactly a year ago this month, a significant report was released by the Australian Senate under the stewardship of another great coalition contributor to the national security debate, Senator James Paterson, now shadow minister for home affairs. That report provided a comprehensive analysis of the tactics used by foreign interests to disturb the Australian democracy via disinformation campaigns, harassment of our diaspora communities and gathering intelligence on individuals. The report identified a number of responsibilities of the social media platforms which operate in Australia, including measures to increase transparency, to label state affiliated media and posting, and to disclose government directions regarding content.

The report suggested a number of possible and responsible government actions, including banning some high-risk apps on government devices, establishing a national security technology office and supporting independent research to counter interference. It also called on civil society to invest in public education, to lift our level of digital literacy and to support diaspora communities to build resilience against foreign interference.

The report did not pull its punches, stating quite clearly that foreign interference and espionage threaten the things that we value most about our country: our social cohesion, our trusted democracy and our freedoms. It recognised the role of social media as a potential highway for ill-intentioned content, citing social media itself is not the threat, but it is a vector for foreign interference. It was clear about the contemporary risk we all face, warning us that authoritarian regimes like China and Russia are deploying new methods for cyber enabled disinformation activities as part of a broader, integrated strategic campaign to advance their own national interests at Australia's expense.

Finally, the report recognised the particular vulnerability of our diaspora communities. Many people living in Australia are not free of the long hand of their repressive former governments, which are reaching across the seas to continue to engage in acts of intimidation, harassment and violence, including through social media.

The use of social media as a method of radicalisation and extremism is of equal concern, particularly for our domestic intelligence and national security bodies. As recently as last week the director-general of ASIO, in an ABC interview, indicated that these concerns have in no way diminished in the last year. In discussion with David Speers, Mike Burgess AM said:

The trouble with the internet is it's the greatest incubator of violent extremism and social media and the downside is the greatest accelerator of violent extremism.

With the algorithms companies use to direct content, a youth only has to search something once, and then, in their search feed, they get plenty of violent extremism or extremism material, which is unhelpful and hurtful for their young, forming brains.

Last week my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society had the benefit of a briefing from Audrey Tang, the former digital minister of Taiwan, regarding measures that country has taken to fight foreign interference and safeguard democracy. Taiwan has one of the most digitally enabled populations and governments, but that comes with obvious risks, as one of the most targeted for disinformation from foreign governments.

Last year, former Taiwanese President Tsai described the dual challenge faced by this most determined democracy:

We let the public have knowledge and tools that refute and report false or misleading information, and maintain a cautious balance between maintaining information freely and refusing information manipulation.

In her comments to the social media committee last week, the former digital minister informed us that, even though Taiwan has the second-highest religious diversity in the world, it now consistently ranks as one of the least polarised countries. Taiwan looks beyond what is said online to where it comes from, data transparency of platforms and the way an algorithm prioritises information. Importantly, Taiwan teaches schoolchildren not only how to consume media but how to contribute to media and online discourse. We have much to learn from the bold approaches of others.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I thank the member for Fisher for raising this important matter. The member's motion calls for a national security strategy. We last had a national security strategy under the Gillard government, and it went to much of what the member for Fisher seeks, such as objectives to protect and strengthen our sovereignty, to ensure a safe and resilient population, to secure our assets, infrastructure and institutions and to promote a favourable international environment and more. I'm happy to table that because, whilst the member for Fisher is not a new member, he clearly did not know that document existed. I think it's even more ironic that he is calling for a new national security strategy two years into the Albanese government, when the coalition governments of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison didn't bother. I note also that the member's motion presupposes that the Albanese government will be in office in 2027. I appreciate the member's confidence in that regard, whilst taking nothing for granted, of course, in Hasluck.

Going to the specifics of the motion, we can see that these are all in fact subjects of action by this government. In just two years the Albanese government has done more work and achieved more than the coalition government did in nine—and the member does know this. One of the first actions of the Albanese government was to engage the Hon. Stephen Smith and Sir Angus Houston to provide the government with the Defence Strategic Review, arguably the most important overarching document in the defence and security space since the 1986 Dibb report. The Defence Strategic Review will inform government policies across defence preparedness, capability and posture for the decades to come.

The 2024 National Defence Strategy is the first of the biennial strategies recommended by the DSR. It is wideranging, covering the strategic environment, strategy, structure, bases, investment, partnerships, industry, personnel and resourcing. In relation to international partnerships, I recently attended Exercise Pitch Black in Darwin, as a guest of the RAAF. Members should be aware that over 20 nations attended this, with over 140 aircraft, and our international partnerships in defence are truly a great asset.

The 2024 Defence Industry Development Strategy drills down into the defence industry needs to support our future security, including procurement, innovation, workforce and exports. The 2024 Integrated Investment Program outlines our capability investment priorities across land, sea and air as well as the space and cyber fields that the member refers to in his motion. So there is a certain sense in which the member's motion is about two years late.

The member's motion acknowledges the work of Senator Jim Molan in the defence sphere, and I add my thanks to the late senator. In the last sittings, the House voted to pass the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. That bill was passed without the vote of the member for Fisher. The coalition opposed the bill on spurious grounds, pretending that it was appropriate to gerrymander the membership of the committee in a way that was arguably both unconstitutional and undemocratic. The member and all of his colleagues know that the membership structure proposed in the legislation for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence is the same as that for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The coalition are not complaining about that committee now and have not previously, so it is quite clear that they are in fact just playing silly games. I'm sure the member for Fisher, when he reflects on this, can be nothing but embarrassed. While he can't stop the member for Dickson from playing silly games with legislation, he knows we shouldn't see that done with legislation that goes to national security. Let's not beat around the bush: if the Liberals and the Nationals stood up and took national security seriously we could already have a joint committee on defence operating today. That committee would already be reviewing the strategies and documents I've referred to and already be starting to play its important role in helping to keep Australia safe. The fact that it is not done is down to the coalition dragging its feet.

We've reformed the oversight of the security agencies, and we'll continue that work. We have a minister for cybersecurity in cabinet. We've elevated the importance of critical minerals. We've invested more in border security than the opposition did, and we've done groundbreaking work in both AI and quantum. I welcome any motion in relation to national security, which is the first duty of any federal government. If, however, the member for Fisher wants to move motions like this one, he should first ensure his party isn't the one delaying action in this area. He should get his party to pass the JCOD bill without this ridiculous, spurious delay.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.