Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

As it stands, the coalition could not possibly support the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. This is a bill that is crucially important to get right, as it deals with Australia's national security and the way in which national security services and departments operate. When it comes to matters of security, there has always been a strong sense of bipartisanship between Labor and the coalition. It's an area where it's often important to work together and not descend into partisan politics—something we see this place descend into all too often. This is an area that's too important to get wrong, and we can't see it mucked around with for political gain.

This is why it's more than a little bit disappointing to see the government try to rush through amendments without consultation, just hoping that nobody would notice. But we did notice, because the coalition is committed to scrutinising the detail in all of the bills that this government puts forward. We are committed to holding this government to account, and we're here to ensure that the people of this country have their voices heard instead of allowing this government to prosecute its own agenda as it feels like. This government is rushing through legislation all over the place, with half-baked policies lacking detail, lacking common sense and lacking consultation or consideration of the impact to Australian households and businesses. We've seen it in the energy sector, housing, Indigenous affairs and Treasury. 'Quickly; we don't know how long we'll be in office, so let's just ram through as much as we can so that, when we're gone, the next lot will have to spend another decade trying to clean up the mess.'

The sole point of contention between the government and the opposition is the proposal in the bill to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 to 13 members and change the required composition from each chamber of parliament. As I mentioned, we were not consulted on these changes. In fact, my colleague Senator Paterson submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's department to clarify whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on this change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed it did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee, and that this measure was a recommendation of government. So, basically, this government just made up its own mind because it knows best and then sought to rush through this incredibly significant reform, just hoping nobody would pick it up. The PJCIS was only given a month to complete its inquiry on this bill and only opened submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame and it is just simply not good enough. Governments are elected to govern on behalf of all people, and those opposite and all of us should never forget that. This is not just a job or a pay check for us. Our decisions impact everyday Australians in the real world all over the country, so we need to have that in mind every time we make a decision.

There was also no evidence that would suggest this change is even required, so the government needs to explain where it came from and exactly what is its intent. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes? Is this a political power play? Government must answer this. Adding a crossbencher or minor party member would significantly change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise been a committee of the parties of government. It in fact risks undermining the bipartisanship consensus on critical national security issues, which has been a stock standard feature of PJCIS for a really long time. And what about leaks? This is always a risk, and the addition of two more members simply increases that risk, whether that is intentional or inadvertent.

The opposition is concerned this can only be a result of internal politics within the government. After the last election, government could not resolve its committee membership for three months. The committee 's work is simply too important to be held hostage by any party 's internal machinations. Those opposite have tacked on these proposed reforms to the bill and rushed the whole thing despite this not being a time-sensitive issue. Work has been done on the comprehensive review's 203 recommendations since December 2019, so, frankly, it is incredibly sad and regrettable that the opposition was compelled to provide a dissenting report in the PJCIS inquiry on this bill. As has been previously been mentioned, this as the first time in 17 years that the committee has been unable to reach consensus on recommendations in this committee. The last time had to do with the original terrorist listing of the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

In the opposition dissenting report to the inquiry, we made some of the following recommendations I would like to reiterate:

There was another recommendation, and perhaps this is because we actually did our due diligence and came up with alternative offers and are happy to be as forthright and transparent as possible with all of you here today. We think that part 3 of schedule 1 should be omitted entirely, and 'the issue of the composition of the committee referred to a further, broader inquiry into the operations of the committee itself as dictated by the Intelligence Services Act'. This is 'consistent with the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the committee in its annual report in 2020-21'. I'd like to say to the crossbench and the minor parties present: if it is indeed this government's intention to add members from among you to the PJCIS—frankly, we don't know for sure if that's the case, because Labor won't tell us—I can understand the temptation you might have to want to get yourself in amongst the action. But, as I stated earlier, national security is something far too important to think about politically. We must think solely about the national interest. So I urge those of you on the crossbench and in the minors: do not support this bill.

Lastly, I would like to invite—and we would all welcome—further engagement from the government on this bill to either remove or amend the provisions impacting the size and composition of the PJCIS.