Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I will continue on the theme of the previous speaker, Senator Chandler, on this bill and its impact particularly on the PJCIS. I haven't had the privilege of sitting on that committee, but I do sit on a number of committees that are similarly sensitive, and I guess this is one area where I would disagree with my good friend Senator Paterson. He described it as the most important committee of parliament. I'd say there are other committees that are equally as important. In fact, I think we should treat all committees as serious organs of this chamber and of this parliament.

The PJCIS, I will agree, does handle a particular character of information that requires its deliberations to be considered somewhat differently to other committees. I would point out, though, that the current Attorney-General does have form in this area, sadly. In particular, a committee I sit on, which, again, deals with potentially very sensitive information—the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, which I sit on with Senator Shoebridge and to which Senator Shoebridge made a valuable contribution in its initial stages, and I'm happy to acknowledge that. But I think one of the flaws of that committee is the fact—and I've said this publicly before and I will say it again. Labor will come to regret its decision to make the deputy chair of that committee a crossbencher. Labor, when it is in opposition again, will recognise the error of its ways. The deputy chair of that committee should have been from the other party of government. That committee has the potential to deal with, in a different character, highly sensitive and highly political investigations of a sort where it is absolutely vital that the workings and operations of that committee do not become in any way partisan. It's extremely important that we make sure that the strong characteristics of bipartisanship that are demonstrated through committees like the PJCIS—or have been in the past, up until this point—can be carried on in this place in the future and in other committees as well. That was a serious error of judgement on the part of the Attorney-General.

We've heard of other errors of judgement just this week. I'm not sure if characterising it as an error of judgement is quite correct when apparently the Attorney-General, as Senator Scarr has pointed out, described a meeting with the then head of the AAT as being cabinet-in-confidence. That is plain wrong. Why would those words have even been used in relation to a meeting nowhere near the cabinet office? There are a number of reasons why they could have been used. I suppose the least egregious reason would be that the Attorney-General just got it wrong. That would be the least egregious reason, but it would also be a significant reflection on his ability and his knowledge of the subject matter when he's supposed to be the chief law officer of the nation. So I think we have some real problems with the way the Attorney-General is approaching these issues. The PJCIS is a very important committee of this parliament. It deals with a character of information that the vast majority of other committees do not deal with, and it has done so, over a long period of time, in an absolutely exemplary fashion. It has done so in a highly bipartisan way. Senator Shoebridge talked about the fact that 'parties of government' is a concept that don't appear in the Constitution. Well, neither do political parties at all. Does that mean the Greens party will evaporate in a puff of logic? The fact is that these structures are put in place and develop over time because they are proven to deliver an outcome for our nation that means that highly sensitive matters can be discussed, not just at the highest levels of government but across the parliament, in a way that involves sensible discussion, sensible compromise.

I know my colleague Senator Paterson put an extraordinary amount of effort in during the last period of government, when he was chair of this particular committee, to ensure that that bipartisan character was maintained and enhanced, through his work across the aisle, as it were, with members of the then opposition to ensure that they were informed, they were given time to understand issues and bipartisanship was preserved. I think that's a great tribute not just to Senator Paterson, not just to the coalition members of that committee, but also to the Labor members of that committee, and I'm happy to say that.

This change, involving no discussion, no debate, no explanation of where it has come from, is, quite frankly, puzzling. It's puzzling. It's disturbing. Why unilaterally seek to change something like this, when you are supposedly a government and an Attorney-General that believe in openness, transparency, consultation? We've heard all these words thrown out by those opposite and, particularly, the Attorney-General. But then, in practice, this is dropped into legislation with no consultation, no discussion, no explanation. So, as Senator Paterson has described, is this about dealing with an internal problem in the Labor Party? If so, that is a disgraceful reason for seeking to change the operation of a committee that goes back well more than a decade—again, with a strongly bipartisan and strongly collegiate approach within that committee. It's not that people sat around and agreed with each other all the time. They didn't. There were significant issues that were strongly debated, from my understanding of the operation of that committee, but it happened within the confines of that committee, and the outcome was that we were able to preserve a bipartisan approach to these very important national security issues.

To think that we now have a unilateral attempt to change that approach, to potentially undermine that committee, to wreck that bipartisanship, is a severe reflection upon the Attorney-General and upon the government. It is not an approach that we would like to see taken by this government. It was with great seriousness, I'm sure, that the coalition members of that committee handed down the first dissenting report in—I think Senator Scarr said—17 years. Coalition members of that committee would not have done that unless they believed that this was a serious risk to the future operation of that committee and of the bipartisan consensus on national security.

I honestly don't believe that the government is still persisting with this change to the PJCIS's membership. I sincerely hope that, behind closed doors, in the minister's office, in the Attorney-General's office, they are reconsidering this and will withdraw these amendments at an appropriate time during the committee stage. It passes belief that we would see this kind of approach to these kinds of deliberations of this parliament, about one of its very important committees.

One of the key points that we need to highlight is the question on notice that Senator Paterson submitted to the Attorney-General's Department asking whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on the change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed that it:

… did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the Committee.

This measure was a recommendation of Government.

So there was no consultation with shadow ministers, crossbenchers or Commonwealth officials. It's an extremely odd way of proposing a change to a joint committee. Again, for those following along at home: this is a joint committee, set up between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It had had a long history of bipartisan and collegiate work over a long period of time, 17 years, without either side needing to produce a dissenting report, until this change was lobbed on the committee from on high, from the Attorney-General's office, with no cogent explanation as to why the change to the membership rules of that committee is required. I think it's incumbent, as we continue to move through this bill, that that explanation is made at some point. I don't see what that explanation could possibly be that would justify the change. If it is merely to satisfy internal Labor political issues, then I think that's an absolute disgrace.