Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This motion amends the government's motion to appoint senators to the PJCIS and the Northern Australia committee in the terms circulated in the chamber. The Greens are calling for these nominations to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to not to be approved because the current proposal fails to comply with the requirements of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001; namely, that nominations should not be considered or finalised until after the Senate is notified by the leader of the government that appropriate consultation has occurred, and that the committee membership reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the parliament.

At the last election a third of the population of Australia voted for someone other than the Labor and coalition parties. They elected a diverse parliament, including a record 16 Greens. It was a clear message that people are ready to move beyond a limited two-party system and towards a parliament whose decision-making reflects the diversities of the communities that we represent. Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must—according to that schedule 'must'—consult with the leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the Senate and isn't currently in government. This has not happened. The Intelligence Services Act 2001 is clear that the Prime Minister must consult with the leader of each recognised political party—so not just the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but the Prime Minister must consult—that is represented in the House and does not form part of government. That has not happened either.

Instead of consultation, we've received a letter with the government's proposed nominations. It's simply a statement. It's not a consultation, and so it's not what the act requires. The act also requires:

In nominating the members, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament.

A committee comprised entirely of Labor and coalition members clearly fails that requirement—that statutory requirement.

Mr Adam Bandt, Leader of the Greens, and I have written to the Prime Minister and to the leader in the Senate to alert them to this. We've proposed that Senator Shoebridge, who holds the relevant portfolios on behalf of our party, be included on the committee in compliance with the act. But this has been ignored. Not only have the Greens been ignored but the whole crossbench has been ignored. The PJCIS has long been a stitch-up by the two big parties without a single dissenting voice to the old party consensus, and we need that dissent because all too often complex national security legislation is presented to this parliament with a phone book of amendments coming out of the PJCIS, with little to no warning, and is often rammed through this place in a matter of hours. When we on the crossbench raise concerns with that or want to refer it to a Senate committee for scrutiny, we're refused because the bill's already been through the PJCIS. But we don't get to participate in that inquiry. We don't get to properly weigh the impact of these laws and the ramifications that they'll have—serious ramifications, in many cases, which often involve the curtailing of rights to procedural justice, rights to privacy and other very significant civil liberties. So, when it comes to protecting rights, when it comes to ensuring that we hold our security agencies accountable, when it comes to protecting the rule of law, it is critical that all voices in this parliament are able to fully participate in the process of deliberation on those laws.

But instead, the PJCIS, the closed shop of the Australian security state, the two-party stitch-up in this creeping surveillance state, makes all of these decisions without any dissenting voice or any third-party input. And that is not good for democracy. It is certainly not good for protecting human rights. It is not good for the parliament. It is not good for the people that we are put here to represent. For all of these reasons, we are moving this amendment, because we're sick of the two big parties thinking that you own committees like this, ones that make crucial decisions that impact on people's rights and daily lives. It's not good enough, and it's in breach of the act. So vote how you will, but this isn't over.