Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to observe that this is a continuing pattern from this new government. Let's be really clear with the public as to what is happening here tonight. The government and opposition have come into this place—as Senator Shoebridge has clearly outlined for the chamber—with flagrant disregard of their obligations, legally, under the relevant parliamentary pieces of legislation, as to the composition of one of the most important bodies within the parliament: the oversight committee which provides recommendations to the parliament in relation to, particularly, security legislation. It is an incredibly influential committee in this place, because of the way in which the major parties operate a closed shop between the two of them on matters of so-called national security.

When it was my privilege to have the portfolio for the Greens of IT and digital rights, I witnessed firsthand the ways in which the recommendations of this committee are manipulated and utilised to close down the debate of this place in relation to legislation impacting on the privacy of Australian citizens. I lost count of the number of times, in my role as the digital rights spokesperson for the Australian Greens—whether it be metadata retention or whether it be backdoors into encrypted messaging applications—I would ask question after question on behalf of some of the most intelligent and engaged stakeholders in our community as to the blatant technical flaws within pieces of government legislation, opening the Australian public up to heinous violations of their privacy, and the answer from the government and the opposition was, 'That was addressed during the PJCIS inquiry, and the recommendation addresses it.' Can I see the minutes? Can I see the content? Was I able to be part of the deliberation? 'No. Just trust us; we had a chat about it. Accept the recommendation to pass the legislation, sit down and shut up.' It is one of the key mechanisms of this closed shop operation, which is not just in relation to this security committee, by the way. In the last sitting of the parliament, the very first time we came together since the election, the first vote this Senate took was to ensure there was no ability for the Greens to chair the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to maintain the closed shop there too.

Here's the reality that everybody watching at home understands about Australian politics—both sides, Liberal and Labor; and let's not forget the Nats too, those great country cosplayers who come into this place pretending to represent the voices and the needs of rural and remote Australians. The deal is this: whichever side wins the election, there are a certain number of gifts and rewards that each side are able to hand out to the factional players, the people that were able to get the donations, the people that want to advance their careers, within the internal mechanisms of the parliament and of the party. There are a second set of rules that operate together at the same set of times, particularly in the Senate, which is, let us remind the entire place once again, the house of review, created manifestly to review legislation on behalf of the community. This place has within its power the ability to properly scrutinise many pieces of legislation, demand the attendance of ministers and act as a true check and balance upon the executive of the government of Australia, yet again and again the ability of this Senate to play that oversight role is given up because on key questions of integrity and oversight the Senate leaders of both sides get together and say, 'It's been a longstanding practice of the so-called parties of government in this place that we shall observe this convention, meaning that there is no need for us to depart from the previously established process. That would be to upend convention. It would be to let anarchy reign. Scrutiny may break out in the halls. Accountability—nay, responsibility—may become part of our culture. We can't have that. Sunshine might come in from the roof, and we would burst into flames.' So they maintain the closed shop and the shadow of this place.

Quite seriously, in these times there is so much in our political debate that is silenced based on two words, national security. It is so easy to shut down a debate in this nation, in this political system, by mentioning the words 'national security'. So much is able to be swept under the rug and out of the way. Now more than ever alternative perspectives are urgently needed to scrutinise legislation in relation to national security policy, particularly in the context that one in three people who voted at this election voted for a party which was not the Liberal, Labor or National parties. You people are not trusted by growing and greater and ever greater portions of the Australian public for very good reason, particularly because of the decisions you make in relation to national security, whether it is the exorbitant expenditures on defence programs such as the submarines, such as the frigates, such as the various pieces of military capacity which are purchased without any thought of value for money to the public or what we might otherwise do with those funds; or whether, indeed, it is the pieces of national security legislation which are rammed through this place, making Australia one of the weakest nations in the world in relation to its human rights structures and in relation particularly to the digital rights protections that are available to its citizenry.

We will only have the capacity to understand exactly what is being done, and the public will only have the ability to access the information that they need to make informed decisions in relation to national security and security policy, when parties that are not part of this closed shop are able to access the information available to members of committees such as the PJCIS. I commend the amendments put forward to the Senate by Senator Waters, our Senate leader. Senator Shoebridge would do a fantastic job in that role. It is exactly the type of independent oversight offered by the addition of crossbench members to such committees which is so urgently needed to inform properly these debates.