James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the amendment on sheet 1982 seeks to preserve the government's stated intent—prior to this debate, anyway—for the rationale for increasing the size of the PJCIS. They say it is due to the workload of the PJCIS and it will facilitate the establishment and population of subcommittees and other such things. If that is the case, if that is their motivation, then this amendment preserves that. It also preserves the ability of the government to have more flexibility in the members from each chamber whom they appoint. It will require that four members come from the Senate and four members come from the House of Representatives, but the remaining members can come from either the House or the Senate.

Why that's important is that there was public reporting after the election, after there was a delay in establishing this committee, that the reason for that delay—it was Ellen Whinnett in the Australian who was particularly reporting this—was that the government was unable to come to a resolution internally about which members should be appointed to the committee, because they had factional, state and House and Senate balances that made it complicated. If that is the government's concern, this amendment deals with that as well. I understand the government wasn't able to support the previous amendment. I really hope the government is able to support this one, because it does allow them to expand the PJCIS; it just prevents it from being extended to a member of the crossbench or a minor party, which, as I've already outlined, the coalition is concerned would compromise operational security.