Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

These bills seek to tighten Australian security in the context of the AUKUS defence partnership and increasing foreign intelligence threats. The Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024 amends the Defence Act 1903 to regulate work that former Australian Defence Force personnel and former defence department staff may perform for or with foreign militaries and governments. The Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024 amends the Defence Trade Control Act 2012 to give effect to possible technology sharing between the AUKUS partners with appropriate levels of security.

My remarks today focus on the first bill, which deals with military secrets. The bill creates new offences for foreign work restricted individuals—former ADF personnel and defence department staff who work for, or train, foreign militaries, government bodies or other entities—unless they have ministerial authorisation. There are exemptions for humanitarian work or for the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The penalties for an offence are severe: a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. I support the purpose of this bill. It's surprising that such a measure wasn't put on the books years ago. But, as usual in here, better late than never.

This legislation was initiated following reports in October 2022 that the Chinese government had approached former ADF pilots to train or advise Chinese military pilots. This is a regulatory change, not prohibition. The bill creates a framework through which work with foreign militaries can be approved. You would expect that work with Australia's allies will be readily approved; however, a foreign work authorisation may be refused if the minister reasonably believes that the work or training would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia.

The legislation is quite random in its scope. It's focus on former ADF and defence department personnel is too narrow and the product of a piecemeal approach to national security. For example, a former officer of the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, part of the defence department, would need ministerial authorisation to provide training to South Korea's National Police Agency but a former Australian Federal Police officer or a former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employee would not need ministerial authorisation to provide training to China's Ministry of Public Security. Just for once, it would be nice to get a bill in here that's done properly; something that is consistent for our national security.

This weakness was also recognised by ASIO, which, in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, emphasised:

… the employees of a much wider range of government agencies and departments have access to secrets and expertise that are of great interest to our adversaries.

ASIO had recommended the new regulatory regime cover all of our national intelligence agencies, not just the Defence portfolio. Why do we bother doing these committees? We obviously do not listen to them—still!

The PJCIS recognised this concern but failed to press the issue, so the scope of the bill remains unchanged. The PJCIS failed to get the job done. Imagine that! You guys talk big on national security in here. You've got to be kidding me! I have to be honest with you: if it's not dealt with now, it probably won't be dealt with in this parliament because you lack the courage to deal with it.

There's another group that needs to be brought into the picture. Last month, the ASIO Director-General threw a cat among the pigeons when he revealed that a former MP or senator had been recruited by a foreign intelligence service and they had worked for those spies while they were a member of this parliament. We had a traitor amongst us—a traitor in this house—but they won't tell us who. Senators should be asking themselves whether we should be exempt from laws and rules that apply to others in the interests of national security. Apparently, it's only a national security interest when it's on other people, but never on the integrity of this parliament. Never! And, of course, both the major parties would agree with this, wouldn't they? 'Oh, nothing to see here. We don't want to talk about that.'

If we're going to impose an additional regulatory burden on men and women who have served in our Australian Defence Force, which is exactly what you're doing, who have sworn to defend our country, and many have put their lives on the line, then members of this parliament should at least be prepared to impose the same obligations on those of us who have been given access to our nation's highest secrets. You forgot a whole group of people over here, and you want us to take you seriously when it comes to national security? You are kidding me, right? You must be kidding us all!

At the very least the definition of 'foreign work restricted individuals' should be extended to include all former members of the National Security Committee of cabinet and all MPs and senators who have served on the PJCIS—and that should be the minimum. It's worth noting that not one of those former or current ministers, MPs and senators got a security check. That's right, Australians; no security checks done up here because you're supposed to trust us! Yes, I'll bet you're laughing. So am I. And it's only Monday!

Former senator Rex Patrick proposed to remedy that security gap with his Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019, but—guess what—both of the major parties weren't keen on their own people getting security passes up here. Geez! I think, given ASIO's recent revelations, we should revisit Rex Patrick's bill. That's what you should do. If you had the courage, that's exactly what you'd be doing. You would be putting these constraints on yourselves because you would be leading by example. This is why you're losing elections. You're still not listening to the Australian people. You just keep going because we've got 15 or 16 months until the next election. You just keep going down the path you are on—not putting these obligations on yourselves in both these chambers. This is what people have had enough of.

No former National Security Committee minister should be allowed to work for a foreign government without authorisation from the current prime minister. We should be setting the highest security standards at the very top of government, not leaving doors open on the basis of trust. I don't know how you trust each other in here, because Australians don't trust us. If that doesn't give you an indication, I don't know what will. We're making an absolute mockery of all the measures we impose further down, whether in relation to security vetting, restrictions on overseas training or implementation of defence trade controls.

This legislation will impose new restrictions on former ADF and defence department personnel. This may well be necessary, and I do not argue with that in principle, but the bill also reflects a piecemeal, hypocritical and deficient approach to national security. The government needs to do much better than they're doing right now. I tell you: when it comes to national security, once again, you're as weak as water. If you want people to be involved, put yourselves under the same restrictions. Lead by example in here. You've got people up this end of the chamber trying to get Australians to trust us, and you guys are knocking us all down. That's what the major parties are doing to us in this country, and it's so unfair. Start leading in here!