Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the hard marker earlier, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 does some very sensible things which we in the opposition are supportive of. As I said before the break, this bill proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing recommendations of the Richardson review. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction. As I said, we do support sensible changes to support the work of our national intelligence agencies, which is why we agreed to the relevant recommendations in the Richardson review back when the outcomes of that review were provided, in December 2020, when the coalition were still in government.

But unfortunately we have this situation where the government is deciding to play games with this legislation by adding the additional amendment that I foreshadowed in some of my commentary earlier—I know my colleagues have spoken about it as well—to change the composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is a change that they have made without consulting anybody, and it seems today that they are trying to rush this change through the Senate, hoping that nobody will notice. But of course we have noticed. We recognise the impact that this change—introducing membership of the PJCIS to be held by parliamentarians who do not come from the parties of government—will have on the bipartisan nature of that committee. The sole point of contention between the government and the opposition, like I say, is the proposal in the bill to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 members to 13 members and to change the required composition from each chamber of the parliament.

As colleagues have already alluded to in this debate today, the coalition was not consulted on these changes. My colleague Senator James 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 that it did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee, the PJCIS, and that this measure was a recommendation of the government. So it has been recommended by the government—here and in the other place—without consulting opposition members, consulting crossbench members or, seemingly, having any serious conversations with anybody in this building about why these changes were occurring.

The government is trying to rush what is an incredibly significant reform, and that is a reform of the committee itself. As I said earlier in my comments, the PJCIS was not given much time at all to consider this change and complete its inquiry on the bill. Indeed, it was only given one month to undertake the inquiry and only opened for submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame. I find this approach very strange when on other matters there is significant delay from the government when things would otherwise be quite critical. They are happy to rush through changes without consultation when it suits them and on other matters they are dragging their heels, particularly in the areas of national security and foreign affairs, two incredibly important areas which this chamber would know I have very strong views on.

Indeed, I spoke in the Senate last night about the fact that the government hasn't yet got around to preparing a response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the human rights implications of violence in Iran which reported more than six months ago. That was an incredibly urgent inquiry and incredibly urgent report into an emergency situation—what was going on in Iran at the time and is still going on—not only for the human rights implications but for the impact on Australia's national security and the safety of Australians as a result of the appalling and dangerous behaviour of a foreign nation, the Islamic Republic regime and the IRGC. This committee has been waiting six months to get a response to that particular committee report, despite the fact that the committee acted with real urgency to complete its inquiry and make a series of recommendations to the government.

In contrast, here today we are debating a bill that the government want to rush through this parliament. They have rushed it through the committee process. They haven't appropriately consulted. This is a bill which contains element that appear to just be based on internal political machinations of the government. My colleagues Senator Paterson and Senator Cash made a significant effort to engage with the government to ensure that this bill could be brought to the chamber in a form in which it could pass with bipartisan agreement.

I refer back to my comments from earlier. It is incredibly important for our national prosperity and security that the PJCIS operates in a bipartisan fashion. As I said earlier, this is the first time in 17 years that opposition senators have felt the need to put in a dissenting report to a PJCIS inquiry. That's because they felt that their views and their positions had not been respected through the committee process. It is very disappointing that, instead of engaging, this bill has been brought on for debate in a form which the government knows doesn't have bipartisan support. The opposition senators on that committee would not have put in that dissenting report if it did have bipartisan support.

As has been outlined, the vast majority of elements of this bill can be supported on a bipartisan basis. As I said, there are some very sensible things in this bill which we as an opposition are certainly supportive of. There is no evidence which explains why this change to the composition of the PJCIS enhances Australia's national security. Frankly, I think the government needs to explain to the Senate where these changes came from. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? That would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise, as I've said, been a committee of the parties of government. There are very good reasons why this is the case. Adding a crossbencher or minor party members to the PJCIS risks undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of the PJCIS.

My understanding is that the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the PJCIS that the addition of two or more members of that committee will also increase the risk of classified material being leaked either intentionally or inadvertently. We in the opposition are certainly concerned that the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS may have this effect. That was concerning evidence to hear. But we are also concerned that these changes are only coming about because of the internal politics of this government.

After the May 2022 election, the government wasn't able to resolve its committee membership for this committee for almost three months, despite the PJCIS being widely recognised as the most important committee of the parliament. It couldn't be reconvened until 6 September 2022. That was three months after the election, and the committee's important work should, frankly, never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations. The government has tacked on these reforms to a bill, the contents of which are not time sensitive, so I think there is far further consideration to be done here.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to 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.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is with some surprise and some concern that I find myself speaking on this bill today. We have been running through the business this week with legislation listed across every preceding day this week, through Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, indicating the government's order of priority for their bills. In doing so, they indicated that the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 would be the next government bill to be considered following the consideration of the social services bill that had been considered earlier during the week as their first order of business.

Yet, today we discover that the government has brought on debate on this bill—brought it on, strangely, only shortly after receiving suggestions from the coalition that, in fact, the dual bills dealing with sensitive national security management issues should be considered together. The government, failing to adopt that suggestion, ought to respond sensibly to that suggestion. My colleagues the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Paterson, and the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, wrote to their government counterparts this week encouraging that the two bills—this one, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill and the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023—be subject to some joint consideration. Each of these bills, as my colleagues noted in their correspondence to government, makes notable changes to the oversight arrangements of our intelligence agencies. Each of these bills also overlap, and they have a combined effect that we think is significant. It would be, and is, a mistake to seek to consider these bills in isolation.

That's why, as I say, it is a surprise, a shock and a disappointment to see this bill was not deferred so that the two bills changing oversight arrangements for our intelligence agencies that are now both before the parliament could be considered in a coordinated way and in a joint way. Instead of that, the government has acted in completely the opposite direction by, in fact, bringing forward consideration of this bill—bringing it up the list of the order of business and, therefore, creating the situation in the chamber today where a number of coalition contributions are being made, and made because we do think government should take heed of the benefit to be had in considering these bills jointly and together. We acknowledge that the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 has not yet been the subject of report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

That's all the more reason why this bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill, should not be being considered at present so that we can try to work through the proper parliamentary committee processes of the Intelligence Services Legislation Bill before reaching a point of parliamentary conclusion in the consideration of this national security legislation amendment bill. We urge that because we think that there may be scope in considering them together to potentially achieve a negotiated position that considers the combined impact of the two bills across Australia's intelligence and security framework. That's why we raised these issues directly with the government.

The oversight arrangements for the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs, which are touched on in relation to these bills, do have a complex history in terms of different approaches being recommended by certain reviews over the years, although no major review of the oversight arrangements for the national intelligence community has proposed that the intelligence function of Department of Home Affairs should be subject to oversight of either the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In fact, the Richardson review, which the bill before us responds to in significant part, expressly recommended against the inspector-general having oversight of the Department of Home Affairs, noting the intelligence functions of Home Affairs and its portfolio agencies other than ASIO are different to the intelligence functions of other Australian intelligence agencies and, as the Richardson review found, that there are no apparent gaps in existing oversight that would warrant such inspector-general oversight.

Given these facts and that the Richardson review also took the position in relation to the AFP not being subject to IGIS oversight in respect of its intelligence functions, we think that there should be a coordinated consideration of the issues before us across these two pieces of legislation, rather than the type of rushed approach being applied to the bill that is before us right now and the risk of some of the proposals going against prior recommendations of expert assessment of our intelligence arrangements that are put in the other bill, which is yet to come to the chamber. Indeed, we are concerned in terms of this bill that it has been a rushed approach the whole way through. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was given only a month to complete its inquiry into this bill and only opened its submissions for one week.

No justification was ever given in any satisfactory way for the very short time frame provided in relation to the bill that is before us. And now we have the government seeking to rush it forward, bringing it up its list of bills for consideration, and push it through the parliament with greater priority than bills that it had previously indicated had higher priority, such as the jobs and skills bill, the inspector-general of live animal exports bill or the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill, all of these having previously been identified as being higher priorities for the government during the course of this parliamentary sitting week. That begs the question: why the rush? Why the hurry? Why is this government seeking to put the bill through in such a rushed time frame, when it makes far greater sense for this bill, together with the intelligence services legislation, to be considered jointly and in a complementary way.

It is hard to do anything other than draw the conclusion that the hurry, the rush, the desire of the government to push this bill forward, is not because of any of the proposals for enhancements and improvements to the way in which our intelligence agencies have oversight applied to them within this bill, which the coalition largely supports. But instead the rush and the drive from the government is to do with something else, seemingly the change in composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that is a concern to us. That is a genuine concern to us.

We are broadly supportive of the enhanced legislative framework for the national intelligence community provided by this bill that implements a number of the recommendations of the Richardson review, unlike the other bill which acts in the opposite direction to a number of findings of the Richardson review. This bill proposes 13 amendments to related Commonwealth acts and we broadly support those proposed enhancements. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction to ASIS. I place on record broad support in relation to those reforms and my thanks to the various agencies, particularly ASIS in this case, for their engagement with the committee, and with me directly as the relevant shadow minister in relation to ASIS, for stepping us through the rationale of and the reasons for those proposed changes. That engagement is important because it's consistent with the long track record that we've sought to maintain in relation to intelligence legislation in the parliament, and that is that it is pursued, as far as possible, in a bipartisan way between the parties of government.

There is no greater responsibility on governments than the safety and security of Australia and of Australians. Our national intelligence agencies play a very critical role in ensuring that safety and security of Australia and Australians. And, in undertaking that role, our national intelligence agencies have significant powers vested in them, as they need and require. Also, they operate in many areas with a degree of secrecy and confidentiality that is a necessary part of their function and operations, and so cooperation is needed across the parties of government to ensure there is effective oversight, to ensure there is effective scrutiny. But we also need to ensure that we can all have confidence through that oversight and scrutiny that the agencies have the powers they need, the resources they need and the functions they need to undertake their duties with the responsibility that we entrust to them but without breach of that security, without the publicity of their operations that could undermine or hurt those operations.

And that is what brings me back to the point of contention in this bill. The point of contention between the government and the opposition in this bill is the proposal to increase the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 members to 13 members, to make changes to the required composition from each chamber of parliament and to also make changes to various quorum requirements. This concerns us. It was not a matter of consultation between the government and the opposition prior to simply proposing this increase in the size of the committee membership.

Unlike other committees, this is a committee whose appointments are made by the Prime Minister following consultation with party leaders. Senator Wong and I, as party leaders on each side of the table in this place, have at times consulted with one another about appointments to this committee as we have both sat in these chairs at the front of this table so as to ensure that it is a committee comprised of members of the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. Respecting and acknowledging the particular role the committee has and the responsibility the national intelligence agencies have, we are deeply concerned that increasing the size of the committee without appropriate explanation as to what the intention or rationale behind doing so is will see the committee operate in a way where it is no longer comprised only of the parties of government. And with an increased size in membership, with a different composition of its membership, it changes the ability of the committee to do what it has done so effectively for some 17 years now—that is, to draw bipartisan conclusions around its work and its reviews, to not have dissenting reports and to provide Australia with outcomes in relation to the operation of our national intelligence community, and to enjoy the support of both the government of the day and the alternative government of the day. That level of bipartisanship has been critical and has played a key role in the successful work of our national intelligence agencies, and we are concerned that the reforms being rushed forward by the government, in terms of the composition of the PJCIS, could threaten that and undermine the type of work the committee does and the scrutiny it applies.

Again, I urge the government to hit the pause button on this bill, to consider it alongside the intelligence services legislation in a coordinated and comprehensive way, and to compromise—in particular, by withdrawing its amendments to the composition of the PJCIS that threaten the way in which that committee operates.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call Senator O'Sullivan, who has swapped with me. I cannot speak because I'm in the chair. Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure you can!

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

Thank you, Senator Chandler; she thinks I might be able to! I recognise the people like Senator Paterson who diligently follow this and understand this. We just can't have, on a whim, non-serious people involved in this committee. It is of real concern. Including additional members, some of whom can't necessarily be trusted with such serious matters, is of concern. Adding additional members runs an increased risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you say 'Tony Abbott' and 'leaking'? Did you say 'Malcolm Turnbull'?

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

Imagine if the Greens were trusted with sensitive national security intelligence. What would we read? What would we find out? This is of concern. We know that the Greens do not support Australia's alliance with the US. There are matters that come before this committee—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you seriously say Scott Morrison was trustworthy with the nation's secrets?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Shoebridge!

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

I know I'm getting a rise out of the Greens.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Shoebridge. Interjections are disorderly.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So is hypocritical stupidity.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, could you withdraw that, please. I'm asking you to withdraw that, because it could reflect upon the chair.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was definitely not directed at the chair. It was directed at the contribution that was being made by the—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist in the smooth running of the chamber, could you please withdraw it.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the suggestion in any way referencing Scott Morrison and national security in the same sentence as anything other than hypocrisy.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, please withdraw it.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It's a beautiful day.

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

It's a case in point, frankly.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scott Morrison is a case in point. You wouldn't trust him with your wallet, let alone national security.

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

The Greens cannot be trusted with something as serious as national security, because time and again you see the Greens come, whether in this place or outside of this place, and play political games. Our national security is not something that should ever be subject to political games. That is the reality. They cannot be trusted. We should look at their record of attacking the AUKUS deal with the United States and the United Kingdom. AUKUS is an important step for Australia to increase our defence capability, yet the Greens attack it on every turn. The Greens' hatred of working with important strategic allies such as the United States is well publicised. That's why you don't have a place on the national security committee. That is why you should not be on the PJCIS.

Honourable senators interjecting—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Excuse me, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Shoebridge! I have Senator Ciccone on what I presume is a point of order.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do, Acting Deputy President. To echo your comments, it is a lovely day, and I actually want to listen to the contribution being made by Senator O'Sullivan without any interjections, as you previously have ruled.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ciccone. Could everybody just enjoy this lovely day. Interjections are disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan, you have the call.

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

I thank Senator Ciccone for that protection very much, indeed. Here's what the Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said of the Greens' approach to national security. He said it would:

… effectively turn Australia into a non-aligned, neutral (state) with a defence budget about the level of New Zealand's.

And that would make us ripe for the picking in terms of China's attempts to dominate the region and our island neighbours.

This bill reflects more broadly the internal battles being played out within factions of the government. That's the reality. It's being played out at the upcoming national conference of the Labor Party. Rather than address the internal strife within its own party, the Prime Minister deemed it was just easier to extend the membership of this committee. That's the reality of what's happening. That's the genesis of the issue here. Rather than stand up and deal with things, as a leader should, we do a simple change to the membership so that you don't need to stand up to the internal divisions and strife, even within their own party.

The coalition would welcome the engagement from the government on this bill to remove this terrible change. In the time that we have left before the final vote is put on this bill, I encourage you to stop, consider, press pause and deal with us. Let's work something out so that we get a reasonable result that reflects the recommendations that were originally made through the Richardson review and that addresses, maybe, some deficiencies—and addresses them in an appropriate way. That is the way of a sensible, sound government; it takes national security seriously. That's the offer the opposition has provided and has put on the table, and we encourage you to accept that. The coalition would welcome engagement from the government.

It's in Australia's interest to keep national security above partisanship and politics. This is of grave concern not just to those here in this place but, indeed, to those across the country. It's not just we as politicians who are interested in this—it's our homes; it's our livelihoods; it's our families; it's people. The security of our nation is the most important thing that this parliament and, indeed, the government has to contend with. So I urge the government: please, don't do this just for a cheap political win—whether it be for internal purposes or to deal with the future make-up of some minority government or whatever it might be that you have to deal with in the future. Let's deal with the reality right now, which is that our national security is of utmost importance. Don't treat it flippantly. Address it by working with a party of government that is responsible and wants to deal with these things in a sound and serious way. Don't just give in to cheap political points.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill. I just want to start by responding to some of the rubbish we've just heard from Senator O'Sullivan—in particular, his contention that if the Greens had a member on the PJCIS it would leak. I refer Senator O'Sullivan to the fact that the media regularly, and with some frustration I might add, write articles about how the Greens don't leak. In fact, somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent of the stories generated out of this place into the press gallery actually come from leaks from either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. It is the parties of war, the parties of the police state, the parties of the surveillance state that are leakers, and do you know why that is, Senator O'Sullivan? It's because only broken things leak, and the Labor and Liberal parties in this place are horrendously broken.

One of the ways in which they are broken is that they are completely captured by the intelligence apparatus in this country. That's the problem that we have here, and it's one of the problems that the PJCIS has, because, of course, what happens in this parliament and in that committee is that the spooks or the intelligence apparatus come in to the responsible minister of the day and say, 'We want more powers,' and the responsible minister of the day tugs the forelock and says, 'Yes. Of course you need more powers. I'll take that to cabinet,' and cabinet, of course, tugs the collective forelock and says, 'Yes. Of course. We're going to give you more powers.' So it goes through cabinet, and then these bills get drafted. They go through cabinet, and then they go into the smoke-filled, darkened meetings of the PJCIS, and what happens in there is that whichever of these two parties of war, whichever of these two parties of the police and surveillance state, is in government says, 'Yes. We've passed this through cabinet,' and then the opposition, whichever one it is—whether it's the Labor Party or the LNP; they're equally captured by the security apparatus in this country—says: 'Yes. We agree with that. We think the spooks need more powers as well, to increase the surveillance on ordinary—'

Debate interrupted.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to statements by senators.