Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No problems at all, Acting Deputy President. I'll be ready in and out of season, as they say, so here I am.

I rise to express concern about the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, echoing the comments that Senator Birmingham has just made, and, indeed, that many of my colleagues have made. There are some serious concerns that have been discussed here about the implications of this bill. It's quite concerning that we are this situation. National security is, of course, this parliament's most serious consideration. It's a very, very important responsibility of government and, indeed, of this parliament.

I want to start by commending the work of my colleague Senator James Paterson for the continued outstanding work that he does in the national security space. He takes it very, very seriously. He commits himself to this subject with real diligence, and he always brings forward issues with real measure. He is not given to exaggerations, he is very sound in his judgement and, certainly, when he speaks of concern about something, I am one to particularly pay attention, because he is diligent in his work.

As I said, national security is a serious issue. It's one of the most important issues that parliament deals with—more so currently, in this day and age, with emerging threats to our sovereignty and our security. It's a particularly strong and important issue that is becoming even more important. It's paramount that we hold the safety of Australians above any political gains, paybacks or rewards. It is absolutely critical.

Most of the amendments in this bill are sensible changes, and there are some elements of it that can be supported. The changes that this bill makes flow from the Richardson review, which the coalition government commissioned back in 2018, so the coalition supports the sensible recommendations that aim to assist the intelligence agencies.

But, unfortunately, as usual Labor have decided to play political games. Our national security should never be contemplated as a space for those sorts of games, because, literally, our nation is at risk if we do. Our security is at risk if we do play political games. Unfortunately, that is what we're seeing here, and it's unconscionable, frankly. We shouldn't be shocked, though, because 'no consultation' is a constant theme under this government. And there was no consultation on the changes that are being proposed here, the ones that we're particularly aggrieved by and that all Australians should be very concerned by. We're seeing that repeated time and again with this government, whenever they bring forward change. They say that they consult, but when you dig a little deeper and go below the surface of the talking points they use you realise the consultation was just cursory at best. No serious engagement is what is happening with many parts of their legislative agenda.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was given only one month to complete its inquiry into this bill and opened submissions for only one week, with no justification. One month—seriously? That's unacceptable. For the public and stakeholders involved in this space to be given only one week to consider the consequences of these changes, and report back and provide advice back to the government and this parliament, is just unacceptable on pretty much any piece of legislation, let alone something as serious as our national security. With the industrial relations bill on 'secure jobs, better pay' that went through last year, the government allowed three weeks for stakeholders to come back on them. That was unacceptable for important legislation that impacts our economy and impact people's livelihoods and jobs, to be given only 21 days to report back. That was absurd. But to do it with national security? Fair dinkum! I actually can't believe it.

This is a very serious issue, and I think all Australians, anyone listening to this debate, should be concerned by what we're seeing—a repeated practice that follows this government. It reeks of arrogance; that is what it shows. We've got a government prepared to flippantly deal with matters as important as national security just so they can play a political game and win some political points with the crossbenchers or the Greens or whoever it might be that they've done a deal with to allow for these extra positions on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's of great concern.

Labor has not consulted with the coalition on these changes. This is a real deviation away from the convention that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has always been run with collegiality and with bipartisanship. This is one of the things that struck me when I first came here four years ago: anytime a report from this committee was delivered, you'd have the chair and the deputy chair, or someone from the government and someone from the opposition, stand up and speak glowingly of the cooperation and collaboration between the two parties because historically we have treated national security with the respect and dignity it deserves. That is the parties of government coming together, realising political games need to be put aside when it comes to national security; that's been the approach of this committee. For this change to come about because of deals that needed to be done with the crossbench is of real concern.

The committee has always been made up of parties of government because it's dealing with very serious matters of national security. It's not a committee I'm involved in; it's not within my swim lane of issues. I'm concerned, but it's not an area of expertise of mine. I've never sought to be on that committee because I don't feel like I can add particular strength or value there.