Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The first duty of any government is to keep Australians safe, and there are few things in this place that the coalition holds to be more important than national security. As a nation, our security is the bedrock in which our prosperity, industry and freedoms are built, but that security must be a form of security that is appropriate for our parliamentary tradition and our system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I find myself informing the Senate, as has Senator Paterson, that this bill is not in a form that the coalition can pass.

We are a proud democracy. The stability and strength of our system is a matter of tremendous national pride, and because we are a democratic system, from time to time our government will change. But the threats to the safety of Australians do not change just because the government does. We therefore need a consistent approach to national security that will keep Australians safe no matter who is in power. We recognise this fact. The coalition wants a system of national security that will persevere in keeping Australians safe regardless of the side of the chamber on which we sit. A commitment to bipartisanship by the parties of government lifts national security above party politics. It is in Australia's interests, and that is why for years now we have maintained a commitment to a bipartisan approach on national security issues, and that commitment is given effect through bodies like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

It's worth dwelling for a moment on this committee, because this committee is the forum by which much of the consensus on national security in Australia is derived. It is actually quite extraordinary because, unlike most committees, whether in the Senate, the other place or joint, it was established by legislation. The committee has historical roots in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, the ASIO Act, going back to the 1980s, but did not really take its modern form until 2001, when it was reconstituted by the Intelligence Services Act, passed under John Howard's leadership.

It is one of the quirks of history that the Intelligence Services Bill was introduced in June 2001 but was not debated and passed by the House until late September of that year. Yes, the bill was passed in the wake of September 11. It was scrutinised following one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the lifetime of many of us. Its philosophy and approach were tested in this very chamber of parliament in light of attacks that fundamentally reshaped security around the Western world. In many ways, the wisdom that underlies the PJCIS predates the threats of the modern era, but it has since then been continually tested and found to be sound.

One of the unusual things about the PJCIS is that many aspects of its operations are largely dictated by rules set out in the schedule to the Intelligence Services Act. The process for nomination, the procedures for meetings and even the security clearances for staff are set out in the schedules to the act. That is why there is a statutory requirement for staff of the committee to be cleared to the same level as staff of ASIS. That is why there are strict rules supported by criminal offence provisions that govern the production of evidence and the secrecy of materials. This legislative architecture guarantees the ability to receive confidential information and to test the evidence of our intelligence agencies frankly and fearlessly. This is conducive to sound national security policy based on evidence. But there is a factor that is perhaps more important than the legislative structure of the committee, and that factor is its extraordinary history of bipartisanship. The word 'bipartisan' does not appear in the Intelligence Services Act, but the reason that the PJCIS is held in such high regard is that it has such a strong culture of cooperation. Serious security issues can be thrashed out behind the scenes to arrive at a negotiated recommendation. With a single exception more than 10 years ago, the PJCIS has been comprised of parties of government with a shared commitment to facilitating a joint approach to national security policy in this country. As Senator Paterson has so eloquently stated, this bill breaks that commitment. Quite frankly, shame on the Attorney-General of this country for presenting this bill to the parliament!

The majority of the amendments proposed under this bill are actually sensible reforms flowing from the Richardson review. The Richardson review was, of course, a review that the coalition commissioned in 2018, following directly from the independent intelligence review by Michael L'Estrange AO and Mr Stephen Merchant PSM. The Richardson review—to give it it's proper title,Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the National Intelligence Communitywas a seminal piece of work. It wasn't triggered by dramatic circumstances; it was a measured, comprehensive analysis of the frameworks under which our national intelligence community operates. It aimed to ensure that the legal framework governing national security in Australia strikes the right balance between individual liberty and collective security. Many of the recommendations which it produced are sensible and are supported by both the government and the opposition. The amendments in this bill adopt some of those recommendations to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community. To that extent, as Senator Paterson has said, those are sensible recommendations and are reflected in the bill, and we support it.

But this is where the Attorney-General of Australia starts to get tricky. Labor have decided to play games with this bill. And what have they done? As we always say, the devil is always in the detail with Labor, and shame on them that that plays out in relation to one of the most important bills to come before this parliament. They have snuck in an amendment. They have decided to play around for their own crass political purposes with the composition of the parliamentary PJCIS.

Did they do this on the basis of consultation? No, they didn't. Was it actually a recommendation of the Richardson review? No. No-one called for it. But, of its own initiative, the government has decided to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 to 13 members and to change the required composition from each chamber of parliament. Evidence from the Attorney-General's Department itself makes clear that 'this measure was a recommendation of government.' In answer to a question on notice from Senator Paterson, the Attorney-General's Department advised, 'It didn't consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee.'

So where are we in relation to the breaking of the bipartisanship? There is no evidence that suggests that this change is required. The Attorney-General of Australia needs to explain why he has presented a bill to the parliament changing the PJCIS. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of the changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? This would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise been a committee of the parties of government. The change would be detrimental because it risks undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of this important committee. The addition of two more members to the PJCIS also increases the risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently, as the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the committee.

One of the most extraordinary things about this change, aside from it being completely unjustified from a national security standpoint, is that the Attorney-General, in his typical style—this is a hallmark of Australia's Attorney-General—has tried to ram it through in the hope that no-one will notice. Well, guess what. Senator Paterson is a little bit smarter than the Attorney-General gave him credit for. Labor gave the PJCIS just one month to conduct an inquiry into this bill, and it gave our intelligence communities just one week—that is the contempt with which it treated them—to prepare submissions on one of the most significant changes to our national security architecture in years. What is worse, none of the reforms were time sensitive. It is an absolute disgrace, and it has led to the most extraordinary result. For the first time in 17 years, the PJCIS issued a dissenting report.

The former and current governments have been working their way through the comprehensive review's 203 recommendations since December 2019, but what do we actually have now before us? We have the Attorney-General of Australia going rogue. He has tacked these reforms onto an otherwise sensible bill and, in a fit of arrogance, tried to foist it on the Australian people before they even knew what was happening. He is dealing with the national security of this country. Every external observer is left thinking this: Why the change? Why the rush? Why the attempt to avoid scrutiny? And let's not quote the now-Attorney-General on his views on scrutiny and transparency, because what he said when he had 'shadow' in his title does not stand up to how he behaves as Attorney-General of this country.

We're concerned that the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS are a result of internal politics within the government. After the May 2022 election, the government was not able to resolve its committee membership for three months, and the committee—the most important committee of the parliament—was not able to be reconvened until September 2022. By expanding the committee and changing the rules around its composition, this bill would give the Prime Minister leverage to resolve internal disputes within his own party. What a great way to utilise national security! But that's the Labor Party for you, under Mr Albanese. Alternatively, it will give him a sweetener to negotiate with the crossbench if he suddenly finds his majority in the House at risk.

Let's be very, very clear. The committee's important work should never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations. It should never be a bargaining chip to hold in reserve for when things get tough, because national security is about Australians and what is in their best interests. 'In case of minority government emergency, break glass' is not an appropriate way to approach the PJCIS membership. The approach taken in this bill will tell you two things about this government and the Attorney-General. The first is the utter conviction that this Attorney-General has in the merit of his own views, as I hear so many times from members of the legal fraternity. It wasn't necessary to consult the others who were affected because this government and the Attorney-General had decided. The second thing is the contempt shown for the interests of ordinary Australians and for their safety. I hope the Attorney-General of Australia reconsiders. Senator Paterson and I have said we want to work with the Attorney-General in a bipartisan manner on this issue. Senator Paterson and I have asked him to make changes, and we are trying to negotiate. We are doing this in the best interests of all Australians. But, as Senator Paterson has said, unless and until we can secure agreement and restore bipartisanship, regrettably the bill is not in a form that we can support.