Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to this legislation, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, with deep concern. I echo the comment of Senator Cash that the Attorney should carefully reconsider what is being proposed in this bill.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is one of the most important committees in this parliament, if not the most important committee. It is also one of the most respected committees. As someone who entered the parliament during the last term, I have always had deep respect for that committee and the way in which it has conducted itself in a nonpartisan fashion. And I have always been impressed by the comments that have been made by members of the committee—including former senator Keneally, who Senator Paterson referred to in his remarks—with respect to the satisfaction they've had working in a nonpartisan way on one of the most important committees in this place, dealing with some of the most important issues faced by this nation.

Everyone in this Senate chamber should carefully reflect on the fact that, for the first time in 17 years under governments of different persuasions, the opposition members on the committee were moved to enter a dissenting report. This is of great significance. I call on those sitting on the government benches to consider the magnitude of that. That is incredibly disturbing. For the first time in 17 years the opposition members were moved to enter a dissenting report. And these members are not just opposition members; they're some of the most experienced members of the opposition who have a track record of integrity in this place and have a deep concern for and interest in matters relating to security and intelligence: my friend Andrew Wallace MP, who served with great distinction as Speaker in the House of Representatives; Senator Simon Birmingham; Andrew Hastie MP; Karen Andrews MP, who served with great distinction as a minister in some of the most sensitive portfolios in the Australian government; and my friend and colleague Senator Paterson, who did a remarkable job during the last term of parliament as chair of the committee and maintained that principle of collegiality and nonpartisanship in his committee—he did that extremely successfully and should be congratulated for that. It is such a shame that, for the first time, the opposition has been moved to enter a dissenting report due to the way in which the Attorney, principally, has conducted himself with respect to management of this issue. Those on the government benches should carefully reflect on that.

The first point that Senator Paterson raised was the lack of consultation. There was no consultation with opposition members. How can you possibly think you can maintain a consensus, collegiate approach on a committee if you propose such a fundamental change to the membership and operation of that committee without even having the courtesy to discuss that with the opposition members of the committee? Why would you possibly do that? It has all the hallmarks of hubris and a lack of concern about maintaining the tradition of collegiality and the consensus approach of this committee. Why else would you possibly do that? It has all the hallmarks of hubris. It's extremely disappointing by the Attorney-General.

I say to Senator Shoebridge—he and I serve on a number of committees, and I enjoy serving with Senator Shoebridge on those committees. Quite often we put forward recommendations we both support, with respect to legislation, which are considered by the Attorney.

I ask Senator Shoebridge to consider and reflect on the Attorney's approach with respect to this legislation because, to be frank, it has some of the attributes which we encounter from the Attorney with respect to other recommendations which both he and I have put forward in a collegiate manner. They are simply disregarded. He didn't even enter into the process of consulting with the opposition on this matter—remarkable. Then, when there is a review of the bill, a one-month process, he gives one week for submissions to be made by our national security intelligence agencies, one week for important stakeholders like the Law Council of Australia to make submissions.

I have read the dissenting report of the opposition members and it is extraordinarily concerning. In paragraph 1.16, the Law Council, in its submission—this is the Law Council of Australia, and we are dealing with laws impacting on security—said:

The Law Council has been unable to consider all aspects of the Bill in detail because of the limited time for consultation, nor has it had the opportunity to adequately consult with its membership on the proposed reforms.

That is what the Law Council of Australia is saying, not a politician, not a Senator, not an MP but the Law Council, who, perhaps, are one of the most important stakeholders in considering legislation like this. They were unable due to that one-week time constraint to consider in detail the provisions of this bill. That is unacceptable, especially in circumstances where, as Senator Cash said, there is nothing in this bill which is so urgent that a reasonable consultation period could not have been provided to key stakeholders. There is no ground that has been established as to why only one week would be provided to key stockholders. I say to Senator Shoebridge—I know he has a deep concern about these matters: this is an opportunity send a message to the Attorney that the way in which the Attorney has managed this matter and, indeed, has managed other matters, where both Senator Shoebridge and I have been involved in our committee work, especially on the legal committee, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. It is full of hubris and a lack of a desire to reach consensus in this place with respect to these very, very important matters.

Senator Paterson said, and this is dealt with in paragraph 1.22 of the dissenting report:

In response to a question on notice, the Attorney-General's Department conceded that it did not consult with or advise any non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee.

That is simply unacceptable with respect to how the matters on the PJCIS should be considered.

Another point I would like to make in responding to Senator Shoebridge's point about the exchange of information between our national security agencies and this committee, the point which Senator Paterson was making, and I think he made very well, is that, from a practical point of view, if the security agencies do not have confidence in the preservation of confidentiality by this committee then it will necessarily have an impact in terms of the information that they pass onto that committee. I mean, that is simply stating the obvious, and I think Senator Paterson was just making the point from a practical perspective, which is why there should have been further time for consultation in this committee.

The last point I want to make is this has all the overtones of a backroom deal having been made between the Attorney and whoever the Attorney has in mind to be appointed to this committee. It has all the hallmarks of that. I did provide a friendly—I'll characterise it; it's my own characterisation—interjection to Senator Shoebridge in relation to his possible membership of the committee in the event that this reform goes in. I simply say to Senator Shoebridge: if you haven't had a call, you won't have a role; if you haven't already had a call, I suspect you're not going to have a role.

I think that underlines the fact that this is all occurring in the backrooms of this place in order to provide some sort of plan B for the government in the event that it loses its majority in the other place. That is the worst possible reason to make a decision to change one of the most important institutions in this place, which has a track record of operating extremely effectively in this place. That is the worst reason you would make a change to our important intelligence and security legislation. That is the last reason why you would do it. But we've got nothing else. There's nothing else that we can assume on the basis of the information that's been provided. You're led inexorably to the conclusion that this is driven by a backroom deal made by the government with someone who, if this bill goes through, will no doubt appear in the membership of the committee.

I say, as Senator Cash has said, as Senator Paterson has said, that the Attorney and the government should reconsider. This is an awful precedent. Just reflect on the fact that, for the first time in 17 years, the opposition members—opposition of either political colour—have been moved to write the dissenting report. It's an awful precedent, and the Attorney should reflect on it. Members of the crossbench should reflect on the non-transparent way in which this proposal has been put forward and on all the hallmarks that it has of some sort of tawdry backroom deal between the government and someone in the lower house, for whatever reason—it has all the hallmarks of that—and should send a message to the Attorney that this is unacceptable. There are too many backroom deals.

I rose in this place, as did Senator Shoebridge, in relation to the Attorney's meeting with the then president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in meeting room 3. We don't know what happened in that room, just as we don't know what happened in the room where this deal was concocted. We don't know. And then we heard that the Attorney, in his meeting with the registrar, said to the registrar that their discussion in one of those backrooms was cabinet in confidence, which is one of the most extraordinary things I've heard from any Attorney anywhere in this country. It's just extraordinary. I have so much sympathy for the registrar, who has done a good job in very difficult circumstances. My colleague Senator Cash asked a question. He had to answer it in the estimates context, and he answered truthfully, but he was as baffled as we were as to how a discussion between a single member of cabinet, who actually is the cabinet secretary and wrote the guidelines on cabinet, which say nothing about cabinet in confidence when you have a discussion with the member outside of cabinet. He was as baffled as we were as to how his discussion with the Attorney could be cabinet in confidence.

This is not just about this bill. This is about the behaviour of the Attorney, and this bill provides an opportunity for all of us in this place to send a message to the Attorney that his conduct in this regard is not good enough. It's not good enough. I say to members of the crossbench that they should view this legislation in this context. It is an opportunity for the Senate to send a message to the Attorney, and I believe we should take advantage of that opportunity.