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

As I foreshadowed in my second reading speech, the opposition will be moving some amendments to deal with one aspect of this bill. Before I get to that, I want to update the chamber and anyone watching on what is happening here and where we're up to here. Coalition members of the PJCIS handed down a dissenting report—the first one in 17 years—on 12 May. We said in that dissenting report that we supported this bill and recognised the importance of the measures in this bill, including: those there were recommended by Dennis Richardson, which our government commissioned and whose recommendations were accepted; and the other recommendation relating to the foreign minister's directions to ASIS, which is also in this bill but wasn't recommended in the Richardson report.

We said we would support all of those on the condition that the government did not proceed with one other change in this bill, which has not been recommended by any independent inquiry or by any independent expert. The government has not been able to provide any evidence on where this recommendation has come from. This recommendation is for the expansion of the PJCIS, which we believe is being done by the government for the purpose of putting a member of the crossbench or a minor party on the committee. That is the only area of contention between the government and the opposition, and my amendments seek to deal with that so that we can support this bill.

Just in case the government didn't pick up the signal that we send in our dissenting report, Senator Cash and I wrote to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs on Tuesday last week. We said we would not be able to support this bill if the changes to the PJCIS remained in it, and we said it would potentially also impact our ability to support a subsequent bill, the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which has just been introduced in the House and referred to the PJCIS for inquiry. That bill contemplates broader and deeper oversight of the intelligence community by the PJCIS and the IGIS. The coalition is up for a conversation about that; we are open to negotiating on that—not, however, at the expense of operational security. It is our view that the expansion of the PJCIS to include crossbenchers puts that operational security at risk, and we are not prepared to support this bill or any other bill that puts that at risk.

If the government still wasn't clear following the letter from Senator Cash and me, in which we offered to negotiate on these questions, in the Senate when this was considered on Thursday last week I again made our position clear. In a meeting with the Attorney-General's office on Friday, Senator Cash and our staff made clear to his staff what our position is.

I think it has now dawned on the government—only this morning—that this bill now cannot pass this chamber unless the government is willing to compromise with the coalition on PJCIS membership or unless the government is willing to compromise with the Greens on their amendments. Let's be really clear on this. The two amendments that the Greens propose would remove two of the recommendations made by Dennis Richardson, which we accepted when we were in government, which you have accepted now you are in government, which have bipartisan support and which are straightforward, uncontroversial, appropriate and necessary. So the government has a pathway before it: either do a deal with the Greens on national security and remove from this bill bipartisan recommendations made by Dennis Richardson, and, therefore, put our national security at risk; or do a deal with the coalition and maintain the bipartisan culture and ethos of PJCIS and get this legislation passed today. There are important provisions of this bill which should be enforced, and the sooner the better. But we cannot support them while the government makes this unilateral change to the PJCIS membership.

This is my final appeal to the government after many appeals: please pause on this. Please do not proceed with these PJCIS changes which were not recommended by any review, not recommended by any report and not recommended by any independent expert. The government has only been able to say it has been a 'decision of government' and has provided no evidence as to why it is necessary. I really appeal to you: support the opposition's amendments. I will move two of them, if necessary, in sequence.

The first one would simply omit the changes to the PJCIS membership from this bill and leave all other provisions of this bill intact. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be other opportunities to have discussion about PJCIS membership; that could take place as part of the committee's upcoming inquiry into the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 that the government has introduced, or as part of that legislation, if the government believes that is necessary. But let's sit down and have a conversation on a bipartisan basis and maintain the very strong working relationship we've had on the committee; let's do it that way.

Alternatively, if the government is absolutely insistent that we must expand the size of the PJCIS membership, and if they are insistent that they need the flexibility to appoint different members of each chamber—from the House and from the Senate—then we have an alternate, fallback position. That is to permit the increase in the size of the PJCIS but to put in the IS Act for the first time that—as the convention has always been, save for one exception—that those members come from the parties of government: that members of the government and members of the opposition make up the committee. That will allow the government to expand the membership of the PJCIS and allow the government to choose members from whichever chamber they believe is necessary—within limitations; there should be senator and members, as a minimum, on the committee—and it will only prevent the government from putting a crossbencher or a minor party member on the committee. That is the only change it will make. We really think these are two reasonable propositions which solve the problem the government has got itself into today. We are offering to work on this on a bipartisan basis to solve this problem, and I really urge the government to consider it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing the amendments foreshadowed and moved by Senator Paterson. Probably the best way for me to address them is by referring to the amendments that are contained in the bill that the government is moving which provide the rationale for the government's position on the bill itself and also on Senator Paterson's amendments. The current act does not require the PJCIS to be composed of a certain number of non-government members, but the amendments that are contained in the bill being moved by the government will introduce a requirement that at least four of the members of the committee are non-government members. The bill does not change the current appointment process from members to the committee under subclause 14 of schedule 1 of the act and the bill does not change the ability to appoint any member of parliament to the committee. As I say, the amendments in the bill being moved by the government will introduce a requirement that at least four of the members of the committee are non-government members, to reflect the fact that this is a committee that does operate on a bipartisan basis.

Independent members and members of minor political parties will remain able to be appointed to the committee under the proposed changes, just as they are presently able to be appointed to the committee. The nomination of members to the committee is a matter for the Prime Minister. The appointment of members to the committee is a matter for the parliament, but, as I say, the government will be opposing the amendments being put by Senator Paterson.

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

The Greens oppose these amendments coming from the coalition. Rather remarkably, the contributions from the coalition ignore the existing law. The law requires the make-up of this committee to reflect the make-up of the parliament. It actually says that expressly in black-and-white. We have a series of propositions put by the coalition to urge the government to populate this committee with breach of the clear legislative requirements that are being made up in a manner that represents the diversity in the parliament. It is quite remarkable, seeing a major political party urging the government of the day to not only maintain a political club but to do so in clear breach of the law on a national security committee.

When this committee was established, the parliament turned its mind to the idea that it would be receiving significant amount of privileged secret information, so, rather than create a club where only a select subset of the parliament would get access to it, the parliament expressly legislated that if you're going to have a committee which receives rafts of secret information and then provides reports to the parliament on how it should respond, the parliament said, 'Well, that committee should be reflective of the parliament.'

We have now had the coalition, both today and on Friday, state that this committee should statutorily exclude anybody who is not from the coalition or the Labor Party. They use this term 'parties of government' as though the coalition is to be trusted. This is the same political party that made Scott Morrison the Prime Minister, who had so many breaches of integrity that the entire nation, except for a tiny subset of hard-right ultras in the coalition, breathed an enormous sigh of relief that he was no longer in a position to have access to that kind of information. This is the same coalition that in its fringe 'cooker' section is working on QAnon conspiracies, and sharing QAnon conspiracies as part of their political project. And the coalition say that they are somehow a trusty set of hands on national security.

Let's be utterly clear about it. There are a bunch of people elected as coalition MPs who cheered on the riots attacking democracy in the United States. There are a bunch of people in the coalition who cheer on the attempts by Donald Trump and his mates to subvert democracy in the United States. And there are a bunch of people in the coalition, elected into this chamber and into other parliaments around the country, who would cheer on the subversion of democracy in Australia. And they say that they're somehow to be trusted, uniquely trusted, with security and defence information. It would almost be laughable if it were not so serious.

What have we seen from 17 years of unanimous like-mindedness, the unchallenging club? What have we seen? Well, we've got a little bit of an insight into the outcomes of that in today's media. We're seeing billions and billions of dollars stripped out of our defence and security budget by unscrupulous consultants who realise that nobody is checking. They realise that the bulk of what goes for scrutiny of the defence expenditure and defence programs in this country happens in this secret club that Senator Paterson used to chair and is so in love with. The secret club chaired by Senator Paterson, in the course of his entire occupation of the role of chair, somehow missed a multibillion-dollar rort of defence coming from KPMG. How many times did KPMG turn up and say they loved what you were doing—less scrutiny, more money, less power? Somehow or other it just passed them by on their secret committee.

The same secret committee signed off on the French submarines deal and said it was so important and we should urgently do that. They loved it. That was $5 billion and a decade wasted. Who has been held to account for that? Nobody on the secret committee, nobody in the defence establishment. Isn't it going well? Is this the same secret committee that was in charge of oversight of the national security when the 2016 white paper was delivered that said there was a mess, and when the Defence Strategic Review was delivered, which says that pretty much no part of defence is working, that they're not meeting the right strategic challenges and they couldn't procure their way to a shared meal in a pub? Is that the same secret committee that's been doing such a great job? It turns out it is, and they want to just keep the club operating. Any objective view of it says that it's not working.

If this amendment, sometimes referred to as the Wilkie amendment, works its way through, and there is at least one critical voice, one critical mind, on the committee, how could that be a backward step? I know that there was tittering from the coalition benches when there was a discussion of Andrew Wilkie being a whistleblower. There was a little frisson of tension from the coalition. Imagine putting a whistleblower on it. Imagine putting somebody on it who had firm integrity, who stood up when they saw an unlawful war coming, who put their liberty on the line to call out what has ended up being a two-decade debacle from our country and our allies in Iraq. Imagine putting someone with that kind of integrity on a national oversight committee. That's something the coalition could never come at, putting somebody like that on the committee—just one critical voice, one critical mind. The thought of having even just one critical mind on this committee has given the coalition a serious case of kittens. They've all been birthing kittens for the last 48 hours at the prospect that there might be one critical mind. We aren't so frightened of democracy. We kind of like a critical mind being on this committee, and we will be opposing this amendment.

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

In a moment, I have a question for the minister, but first I have to take the opportunity to thank Senator Shoebridge—through you, Chair—for perfectly illustrating how ill equipped the Greens political party are to be members of this committee. In Senator Shoebridge's contribution and in the contributions of his colleagues in the second reading debate, they made a number of assertions about the failings or alleged failings of the PJCIS in recent years to oversee various issues. Most recently, Senator Shoebridge says, how did the PJCIS miss this alleged issue between KPMG and Defence? How did the PJCIS, in his words, 'sign off on' various previous submarine deals? Well, I've got an insight for you, Senator Shoebridge: the PJCIS doesn't have oversight of the Department of Defence. It doesn't have oversight of submarine contracts. It doesn't have any visibility at all over anything that KPMG might or might not have done with the Department of Defence, because that is not the role of the PJCIS. Senator Shoebridge referred a number of times to the act. If he'd read the act, if he understood the act, he'd understand that the role of the PJCIS is to oversee the intelligence community, not the defence department or the ADF. So thank you for illustrating perfectly why the Greens don't understand the function of this committee and are ill equipped to serve on it.

My question is to the minister and in light of those contributions: has the government done a deal with the Greens to get this bill through the chamber? Will the government vote for or allow through the Greens amendments to remove Dennis Richardson's bipartisan recommendations from the legislation? If not, how does the government intend to get this bill through the Senate today? If the coalition doesn't support the bill and the Greens don't support the bill, it's not clear how this bill will pass this chamber.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a matter for the Greens party how they choose to vote on this or any other bill. I understand it is the government's intention to vote against the Greens amendments. What the Greens decide to do in response to that is a matter for the Greens party.

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

Minister, who recommended the changes to the composition and size of the PJCIS membership?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a decision of government to propose the amendments that are contained in the bill, but that is based on the principle that this committee, like all committees, should represent the composition of the parliament. I understand that this would not be the first time that the PJCIS would contain representation from the crossbench. That was the case under the last Labor government. I'm not aware of any national security failures that occurred as a result of that. It's due to those reasons and that principle that we're proposing to make this change.

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

Minister, I'm not sure if you realise, but you are the first minister in the government to confirm that it is this government's intention to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee and the first minister to publicly articulate that the reason for these changes is to allow that to occur. Previously, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and others who have been asked about this have said that it is just a matter for the Prime Minister and that you will not commit to who is going to be appointed to this committee. Have you just revealed the deal has been done? Is it Andrew Wilkie? Is it a member of the Greens? Is it another member of the crossbench? Who has the deal to join the PJCIS been done with? Or do you want to clarify your answer?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm simply responding to the assertions that have been made, throughout this debate, by the opposition that deals have been done or particular people have been appointed. As you have just explained, Senator Paterson, it is a decision for the Prime Minister how appointments are made. Those appointments will be made after this legislation is passed, if that's the will of the Senate.

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

But, Minister, in your answer to my previous question, you said the reason for these changes is to ensure that the committee is reflective of the parliament. No Albanese government minister has previously said that. In fact, they've relied on a different rationale to justify this increase, as did the Attorney-General's Department in the PJCIS hearing and in Senate estimates. They have said that the reason why we need to increase the PJCIS is the workload of the PJCIS, but you didn't mention that in your answer. You've now provided a new explanation as to why this is necessary. Could you clarify: is the reason for the increase in the PJCIS membership because of its workload, or is it so you can change the composition to reflect the will of the parliament or the standing of the parliament?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator WATT (—) (): Again, Senator Paterson, you have just confirmed that various Albanese government ministers have pointed to the workload issues that this committee faces. You would probably understand that yourself having been a fairly longstanding member of the committee. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the explanations that have been provided by other ministers. My comments about the composition of the committee are simply in response to the assertions that have been made by the opposition.

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

Minister, how would a larger PJCIS help with its workload?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I don't know whether this has been explained to you already, but an option would exist for there to be subcommittees of the PJCIS, which would enable a more equitable distribution of work to allow for the important work of that committee to be done properly.

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

Is the minister aware that there's already an option for the PJCIS to have subcommittees?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am, but it stands to reason that an increased number of members of the committee would better facilitate the establishment of those subcommittees.

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

PATERSON () (): I'm not sure that is right. The committee already has 11 members. The addition of two extra members wouldn't make it any easier to form a subcommittee. A subcommittee can consist of as few as three members and have as few as two required for a quorum for a public hearing. I'm also not sure if the minister has ever observed a PJCIS hearing, but, in my view as chair and trying to herd the cats on the PJCIS, the many opinionated members of the PJCIS, and the many questions, a larger committee with a larger number of people who can participate in public hearings would slow down the work of the committee because there would be more people with questions in public hearings, we'd have to hear from witnesses for longer and we'd have more people to negotiate with in the committee stage.

Of course, at the final point, when we are settling the resolution of a report, that will be much more difficult to do if we have a member of the crossbench or a minor party who has to be incorporated into negotiations. Previously, the two major parties have been able to negotiate in a consensus driven way to arrive at compromise, if necessary, and bipartisanship. But now you will have to incorporate a member of the crossbench or a minor party. How is this going to help the committee function?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson is entitled to his view about the operations of the PJCIS, but the government clearly has a different view.

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

Minister, has the Prime Minister offered a position on the PJCIS to any member of the crossbench or a minor party?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not aware of any such arrangement.

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

Has the Prime Minister offered a position on the PJCIS to any member of his own caucus?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I'm not aware of any such arrangement. As you have already recognised, it's a matter for the Prime Minister as to how he appoints members of the committee.

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

It's true, isn't it, that the Prime Minister has offered a position on the committee to Mr Wilkie and a member of his own caucus in the lower house?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I'm not aware of any such arrangement.

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

I'm surprised that the minister who's taking this bill through the chamber and who articulated a few moments ago the rationale for this change, which is to reflect the parliament and therefore incorporate a minor party member or crossbencher, is not aware that the Prime Minister has made that offer to members of parliament to join the committee should this legislation pass. I think it is notable that the Prime Minister has made this offer prior to this bill even passing the parliament. It, frankly, indicates a level of arrogance about this change—that the parliament will just agree to it. Even before it's been passed, the Prime Minister has promised membership of the committee to people who are not yet on the committee and before the legislation allows it to be the case. Minister, don't the Albanese government have a view that the bipartisan culture and nature of this committee has been useful in the past in resolving issues in the national interest and in a consensus driven way, and aren't you concerned that will be jeopardised by this change?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do recognise that the bipartisan nature of this committee has been useful. There's nothing on the table to suggest that that needs to change, regardless of the amendments being proposed in this bill.

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

Self-evidently, I think it will change if it is no longer a bipartisan committee and just becomes like any other committee of the parliament. I think there is a reason why many independent experts and commentators recognise that this committee is uniquely functional among other committees of the parliament. It's not an accident that the committee most often and most widely praised for its bipartisanship has a culture of bipartisanship which is driven by the membership of the committee, which is bipartisan. Otherwise, it can just be like every other committee and function just like every other committee, but I think that would be a loss for our nation. Minister, in formulating this proposal, who did the government consult?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've already indicated, this is a decision of government. I might also return to the preliminary comments, or preamble, that Senator Paterson engaged in and would suggest to him that what would ruin the bipartisan approach that has traditionally been taken to matters of national security would be for the opposition to vote these changes down, to vote down a national security bill. I remember all the times when we were in opposition and we were accused of all sorts of things whenever we raised questions about national security bills, but we seem to be in a position where the opposition is threatening to vote down a national security bill. That would be a greater risk to bipartisanship than anything being proposed.

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

We were able to avoid that when we were in government, including when I was chair of the committee, by negotiating and compromising with Labor members of the committee, sometimes over many weeks and even months, on contentious issues until we arrived at a position both major parties were happy with. We did not proceed with the unilateral challenges that hadn't had any consultation.

In answer to a question on notice I put to the Attorney General's Department, it confirmed that the department itself consulted no members of the opposition, no members of the crossbench or anyone else on these changes. What about the minister? Did the minister consult anyone before bringing these changes forward?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can repeat is what I've already said—that this is a decision of government and a decision of the Attorney General.

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

Yes, we know this is a decision of government, but even decisions of government can still be consulted on and even decisions of government can arise out of recommendations. Did the minister or the Attorney General consult anyone on these changes?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ATT (—) (): I understand the bill in its entirety was discussed by the PJCIS, so I would argue that that is a form of consultation with members from the government and from the opposition.

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

I'm not sure that sending a bill to a committee after it's drafted constitutes consultation, certainly not in arriving at a decision. Did the Attorney General consult anyone prior to introducing the bill to the parliament?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't add to my previous answers, Chair.

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

Is it not possible for you to seek advice on that question and come back to the chamber? Could you go to the Attorney General and his office? I'm sure they will have that information available.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to my previous answer.

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

I want to go through the Temporary Chair, because I do want to speak to Senator Paterson. I'd like you to tell me why you believe you can do a better job on national security than what some of us crossbench can do, especially considering our backgrounds. Quite frankly, I think there are a few of us feeling quite offended here. So can you tell me why you believe the red and the blue team can do a better job on national security than what the crossbench can?

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I'll refer your question to the minister, who is answering questions in the committee phase.

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

It's a fair question!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The minister may respond, and I've just given him the opportunity to do so. And Senator Paterson may also seek to respond. Minister.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given it was a question to Senator Paterson, there's not really much I can add. Even though I've been here seven years, I don't pretend to know all the standing orders of the Senate. I know there are some situations in which questions can be posed to senators other than ministers. I don't know whether this is such a situation, but Senator Paterson may choose to respond regardless.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Paterson.

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

TERSON () (): Through you, Temporary Chair, to Senator Lambie, I understand why intuitively an amendment like this would be appealing to the crossbench. It does, on paper, offer you the opportunity theoretically to serve on this committee, but all I can say is what I said in the second reading debate. If the Prime Minister hasn't already called you and offered you a position on the committee, it's not you that he intends to appoint, because I believe he has already made that offer to a member of the crossbench.

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

Senator Paterson, that's not the question I asked you, is it? I simply asked you: why don't you believe we can do just as well on national security, when it comes to national security, as you two can do? Can you provide an explanation? Some of us have worked very hard in this area. Some of us have always had private briefings, including from your party itself—and not just me; there have been others over the years who have had those national security briefings, and they were big and fast—I was getting them every three months there for quite some time—but that has never spilled out. It just bothers me, and I think that whole trust thing is a smackdown when your party was more than happy—and it wasn't just me; it was former senators Patrick and Xenophon in the past, and there have been a couple of others who had all of that. You trusted us in those rooms to have those national security meetings, and now it seems we're not trusted enough to take those sorts of positions if they are offered.

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

Senator Lambie, I respect your career of service to our country prior to coming to this parliament and your work in this parliament particularly on defence issues and on veterans affairs issues. You're rightly recognised widely in the community for that, and no-one would seek to take that away from you. The reason why the coalition believes, as the Labor Party has generally believed—with one exception in the past—that the PJCIS should remain a bipartisan committee of the parties that have served in government is: since the end of World War II, there are only two forms of government we have had in this country—either a Liberal-National coalition government or a Labor government. It is only us who have the burden of having to live with the implementation of the recommendations that committees like the PJCIS implement, it is only us who have to take the responsibility at an executive level for keeping this country safe, and it is on the parties of government where responsibility will fall if something ever goes wrong. Because of that burden I believe it is appropriate for the parties that have traditionally served in government to continue to hold this responsibility, which has worked remarkably well with the PJCIS since it was introduced in 2001 and with its predecessor committees. I think to tamper with that now and to change that now is dangerous, particularly in the heightened security environment we are entering into.

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

Minister, I'm just wondering: do you know whether or not the Liberal Party over on this side know that since World War II we now have a lot of Independents—it is the 21st century—and that their numbers are decreasing? I'm just wondering whether that's been brought into play today. The way they're going, their numbers will continue to decrease and you're going to have more crossbenchers up here. Was that ever taken into account? I'm sure it was, because someone seems to be up with what's going on in the 21st century. These ones here are still asleep at the wheel, knowing that very well their power is decreasing every time we go to an election.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I'll leave it to you to make observations about what might be in the minds of the opposition.

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

To be clear, Minister, this amendment doesn't change the existing provision in the act:

In nominating the members, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament.

It's not intended to change that but it is indeed in the spirit of that; that is my understanding.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's correct.

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

Just briefly, on that question: I'm glad Senator Shoebridge has now read out the full provision of the bill rather than quoting from it selectively. It requires that the Prime Minister have regard 'to the desirability of'. It does not require that the PJCIS be representative of the parliament. I wasn't there when the bill was drafted and I can't imagine exactly what was in the minds of the drafters, but they very clearly could have required the Prime Minister of the day or the parliament to ensure the committee was strictly representative of the parliament. The bill does not do that, and I suspect they did so for a reason. Accordingly, I moved the amendment on sheet 1979 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 7 (lines 1 to 23), to be opposed.

Just to explain, this amendment seeks to remove all provisions relating to the PJCIS from this bill so that the status quo would prevail. If this amendment is not successful, I have a subsequent amendment I will then move.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that part 3 of schedule 1 of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 stand as printed.

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

As anticipated, unfortunately, our first amendment has failed. However, we have a backup amendment on sheet 1982, which I will move shortly and which seeks to deal with the same substantive problem. If senators are wondering, I think it might be a few minutes before we come to a vote, so they could leave the chamber if they need to.

An honourable senator: Hear, hear!

Or, if you wish, you could stay and listen to what I'm sure will be a scintillating debate; I'll let you make up your own minds! It depends how far you have to go in the building. The amendments on sheet 1982—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, I'll just interrupt you there. If senators who are not participating in this discussion in the committee stage could either leave the chamber and take your conversations outside or resume your seats in silence, that would be appreciated.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The Greens don't support this amendment. Indeed, we think it would create a significant problem, having two contradictory elements in the legislation, one being the provision in the schedule that I read on the record to the minister earlier and the other being this. It would create incoherent legislation, as well as being offensive in principle.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will also be opposing this amendment. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, the changes that are being proposed in this bill would increase the number of members of the committee, and that is about making it easier for the committee to manage its workload. As I've already pointed out, it would create a greater capacity to establish subcommittees, to undertake some of the work that the committee is required to do. As for the composition of the committee, as Senator Paterson is aware, the current legislation does not dictate a certain number of government or opposition members, and we don't believe it's necessary to dictate that in the way that Senator Paterson's amendment would do.

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

Just briefly, I will make an observation on that, and then I will move my amendment, for the benefit of the chamber, so it shouldn't go too far. That last part of the minister's answer was revealing. It appears very clear then that the cat is now out of the bag: the government does intend to appoint a member of the crossbench or a minor party. Otherwise, all this amendment seeks to do is formalise the convention, which is well established on this committee and respected by both parties when in government, save for one brief exception—which I think it's worth pointing out was in the minority parliament period of the Gillard government, who clearly as a result of that were forced to do a deal with then-crossbencher Mr Wilkie to put him on the committee in exchange for confidence and supply. That is not the case today. This government has a clear majority in the lower house—maybe not a comfortable one but a clear one. That means that it is not necessary for them to do a deal with Andrew Wilkie for confidence and supply, or with any other crossbencher or minor party member. So they could formalise the convention on this committee that says that only members of the government and the opposition serve on this committee and which preserves the balance. It concerns me, from the minister's answer, that the government in fact intends to use this opportunity to dilute the opposition presence on this committee and to increase the government's proportion of the committee. That would be very concerning. With that, I move the amendment on sheet 1982:

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 4 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

11 Subsections 28(2) and (3)

Repeal the subsections (not including the note), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members and must include at least:

(a) 4 members of the Senate; and

(b) 4 members of the House of Representatives.

(3) The members must consist of the following:

(a) 7 members who are Government members;

(b) 6 members who are Opposition members.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that the amendment moved by Senator Paterson on sheet 1982 be agreed to.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2055:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 8 (lines 1 to 25), to be opposed.

This amendment by the Greens seeks to remove from the bill the provisions that give expanded power to ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. As I'm sure the chamber is aware, a spent conviction is a conviction where there have been at least 10 years since the date of the conviction in circumstances where the individual has not been sentenced to imprisonment or was not sentenced to imprisonment for a period of greater than 30 months. I think the equivalent provision for a minor is five years. The purpose of the spent convictions regime is to allow people to get on with their lives after they've been convicted of a more minor offence so that, after 10 years, that offence doesn't keep coming back and haunting them. Of course, the spent convictions provisions only apply where there has been no further offending.

Where someone has breached the law, been taken before a court and had either a non-custodial or modest custodial sentence imposed, our law has always given people a bit of a second chance, after a period of 10 years, to not have it continually raised with them when they're seeking a job, when they are seeking to travel and when they're seeking to get on with life. Of course, over time, there have been a variety of exemptions to that so that, for certain national police record searches, spent convictions can continue to be included in a conviction search. That is for more sensitive occupations, in particular. But the broad position is that, after 10 years for those relatively minor offences, ASIO and other security agencies can't keep accessing and sharing that information. In particular, it's the sharing of information that this bill seeks to allow. It seeks to allow ASIO to continue to share information of spent convictions.

This matter went to the Human Rights Joint Committee, and the Human Rights Joint Committee gave this as their view:

1.98 The committee notes that permitting ASIO to use, file or record and disclose spent convictions information in the exercise of its functions or the performance of its functions, limits the right to privacy, particularly as it is not clear to whom ASIO may disclose personal information about spent convictions. The committee considers the measure seeks to achieve the legitimate objective of allowing ASIO access to the information necessary to perform its functions, and to protect Australia from security threats. In considering the proportionality of the measure, the committee considers it would have been useful had the statement of compatibility identified any applicable safeguards. The committee appreciates this information may not be available on national security grounds, however, without information as to whom the spent conviction information may be disclosed, it is not possible for the committee to fully assess the compatibility of this measure with the right to privacy.

1.99 The committee draws this matter to the attention of … the Parliament.

So through you, Chair, I asked the minister: what are the safeguards? The Human Rights Joint Committee has said that they can't find any. The EM contains none. The bill contains none. What are the safeguards on spent convictions?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to Senator Shoebridge, I also advise the chamber that the government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. The Commonwealth's Spent Convictions Scheme aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of previous convictions by limiting the use and disclosure of older, less serious convictions and findings of guilt. Under the scheme, certain agencies have exemptions which allow them to use spent conviction information in the performance of their functions. Excluding ASIO from the Spent Convictions Scheme will allow ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information to better perform its functions and exercise its powers, including cooperating with law enforcement. It will also rectify an existing discrepancy whereby law enforcement agencies are able to use, record and disclose spent convictions information for investigations or the prevention of crime while ASIO is prohibited from doing the same.

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

I rise to advise that the coalition will also be opposing this Greens amendment. It is a recommendation of Dennis Richardson which the former government has accepted, as has this government. I think it is self-evidently easy to understand how ASIO may need to have access to this information, to use this information and to share this information. To give just one hypothetical example for the benefit of the chamber, ASIO now has centralised responsibility for top-secret security clearances. Wouldn't it be obvious why ASIO might need access to and might need to share information on someone applying for a top-secret security clearance who has a conviction which might be spent but nonetheless relevant in the granting of a TS security clearance and, therefore, to a job in a highly sensitive role in the Commonwealth?

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

There is already a raft of individual exemptions that allow for the sharing of spent conviction information in circumstances like that. This is a very open—indeed, an entirely open—exemption. I asked for some clarity from the government about what the guidelines are, what limits are proposed on who ASIO can share this information with and the circumstances in which they can share the information, and I didn't hear any limitations. It just seems to me that we hope and pray that the security apparatus, ASIO, will act appropriately. Is that the guidelines? Is that the limit? Is it just that it's up to ASIO?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I suspect Senator Shoebridge is probably aware, the minister's guidelines for ASIO require ASIO to do things proportionally and reasonably, and that is a legal requirement on ASIO officials. That provides the safeguard to prevent abuse, because abuse of these powers would not be proportional or reasonable, which is what ASIO is required to do under the minister's guidelines.

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

To assist the minister in relation to this—this is an important matter—the IGIS would have oversight of the use of this power, as with any other powers that ASIO has. IGIS is an incredibly powerful oversight mechanism and has the power of a standing royal commission. It can go at any time to an intelligence agency, demand access to any document or any record created by ASIO or any other intelligence agency and very closely scrutinise their conduct.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that part 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

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

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 2055:

(2) Schedule 1, Part 6, page 11 (lines 1 to 17), to be opposed.

The bill, as drafted, significantly reduces oversight of ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. It reduces that oversight by removing the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction. We cannot see, as Greens, an argument for giving the Ombudsman less oversight in this space. There has never been a suggestion the Ombudsman was a security breach. There's never been a suggestion the Ombudsman's oversight has been excessive. Indeed, the Ombudsman provides a small measure of additional oversight of organisations that are only being given more power and more resources by the Albanese government. The only argument in favour of removing the ombudsman's jurisdiction is that somehow there's too much oversight of our national security industry. I don't think anyone could fairly review the space and agree with that argument. We move the amendment to protect the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction and to ensure that we have at least that entity in government oversighting these bodies. We know that there are other more secretive oversight measures in place. We acknowledge that, but the ombudsman's oversight comes with the benefit of having whole-of-government oversight and won't treat the security apparatus as somehow this entirely special, separate entity. They have the benefit of oversighting the whole of the federal government and bring with that, I think, an essential perspective in oversighting these parts of the security apparatus in Australia. We commend the amendment to the Senate.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

TT (—) (): The government will not be supporting this amendment from the Greens either. By convention, the ombudsman already does not investigate action taken by ASIS, AGO, ASD, DIO or the Office of National Intelligence, although these agencies are currently within its legal jurisdiction. Recommendation 167 of the comprehensive review provided that ASIS, AGO, ASD, ONI and DIO should be excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction. These agencies are overseen by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, which is, of course, Australia's dedicated intelligence oversight body. This amendment will formalise the ombudsman's existing approach to these agencies while maintaining the strong oversight provided by the IGIS. Since 14 December 2005, the ombudsman and the IGIS have had a memorandum of understanding which guides the approaches of these offices to oversight of these intelligence agencies. As I say, the government is committed to implementing the recommendation from the comprehensive review which did recommend those agencies should be excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Lest Senator Shoebridge or other senators have concerns about oversight as a result of these changes, it is worth noting that the ombudsman applies a lower standard of oversight than IGIS, or less oversight than IGIS. IGIS assesses for the legality and propriety and compliance with human rights whereas the ombudsman assesses for whether a decision or action was reasonable. So we feel confident that, by retaining the oversight of the IGIS, it provides the safeguard that Senator Shoebridge is seeking.

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

ON () (): The coalition will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons outlined by the minister.

Question agreed to.

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

Before I move this amendment, I just want to make it quite clear that this amendment is actually not complicated. It's just a common sense measure to keep others safe, especially their families. It is a simple amendment that allows diggers that have been told—once again misled—that their identity will be protected to actually have their identity protected, like they have been told for their entire careers, for many years. That is a big part of the reason that they signed up, especially when you have family, and it is ingrained in you that you will put the military first before your family. That is a sacrifice that we make, and we do that. Millions of other Australians will not. This amendment will make it a criminal offence to release the identity of those personnel we ask to conduct these most dangerous operations that nobody else will. Nobody else will line up and do them; they're not lining up today to do them, and I'll come back to that. This amendment seeks to give those personnel the same protection as an officer of ASIS. We're not asking for anything special; we're just asking for the same treatment.

This year a special forces soldier had his name splashed across the newspapers. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force claims to be finalising charges against other soldiers, which, if this precedent follows, will allow the same treatment by the newspapers. Their identities will be revealed. Their lives will be put at risk. Their names will be put out there, not to mention what will go on for their children. Not to mention we still have ISIS cells running around Australia—let's be honest here. If you think splashing their names across the newspapers does not put them and their families in danger, then you are delusional—you are absolutely delusional. When the ISIS enemy come after us, they don't give a stuff. They're happy to take our kids out. If you didn't see the way they played their role in war in the Middle East, then have another look. They don't care!

But I'll tell you what hurts more. It's when you leave a digger standing and they've got no family around them. This is what happens. Special forces personnel are sometimes required to engage in secret operations in other countries, but of course we don't ask any questions about that. How dare we? We wouldn't dare, and we don't because we're too bloody scared to ask. You don't want to know the dirty crap they're doing for this country that they've been asked to do. You don't want to know! You don't want to know not because they're not doing it and you don't know. You don't want to know because you asked them to do things that you would never ask yourself or anybody else to do. That's what we ask of them.

This amendment will put an end to having their identities released. You have a white elephant in this room. In one corner we're talking about national security. In the other corner people are not joining our forces. And I tell you what: they're sure as hell not lining up to be in the special forces anymore. They're not dying to go to Western Australia whereas they used to compete to get in. When I was in, you had more than enough competition. They could pick and choose from hundreds. If you want to talk about national security in this country, then you'd better have a look at where the white elephant in the room is. You'd better have a look at the way you're treating them because I can tell you. I have put it out there and I'll continue to say: 'Don't join the SAS. You are not protected. You never will be. You are a digger.'

If it isn't senior commanders, it is politicians who're prepared to chuck them under the bus. They're the same people that we ask to make the ultimate sacrifice in doing all the dirty crap we won't do or we don't even want to think about. We don't want to ask questions because we don't want to know. I am simply asking us to give them the same treatment as ASIS. Why is ASIS so damn special? They're doing all the dirty crap out there in the SAS, but they can't get this treatment. This is what this amendment does. Wake up! Once again, in this corner no-one wants to join. No-one wants to join because senior commanders keeps chucking them under the bus. They sure as hell aren't running to join commandos and the special forces, which is where your strength comes from. It's the diggers, thousands of them, that look up to those men. They look up to them because they know without speaking about it what we ask them to do. We don't ask questions about diggers either because we know we're not capable of doing what they can do, and neither are we ever put in the situations they're put in, and that's what makes them so special.

Why can't they have their identities protected? Why can't we treat them the same as ASIS? Why are we doing this? You are part of destroying our national security in this country. That is where we're at today. I move amendment (1) on sheet 2058, and I commend it to the Senate:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 9, page 19 (after line 5), at the end of the Part, add:

43 After paragraph 41(a)

Insert:

(aa) if the person identifies a person as being, or having been, a member of the Australian Defence Force who is serving, or who has served, in a unit that conducts special operations; or

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for her contribution. The government does acknowledge Senator Lambie's concern regarding public reporting of the identities of former special forces personnel. The Australian government is thankful to every Australian who chooses to serve in the ADF. ADF members are asked to perform at the highest standards in the most complex, challenging and demanding environments. Australia's highest standards also extend to accountability for war crimes.

Australia has a robust legal framework in place to ensure that alleged perpetrators of war crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted. Senator Lambie's concern goes to a matter of defence policy about the protection of the identities of ADF members. That is a matter absolutely worth discussing and considering, but the government's view is that it's not a matter appropriately dealt with in the legislation before the Senate this morning. If Senator Lambie wishes to pursue this matter through a private senator's bill, she would, of course, be welcome to do so, and it would be considered by the government in the usual way. But, for those reasons, we won't support the amendment moved by Senator Lambie.

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

The coalition also will not support this amendment, although we do recognise the legitimacy of Senator Lambie's concerns about this issue and are very happy to have further discussions with Senator Lambie about this. Absolutely, the protection of people who serve in special forces and their families—the important point that Senator Lambie made—is one that the parliament needs to consider. But we did not have notice that this particular amendment was coming forward to this bill today. We're not in a position to support it now, because we haven't had a chance to consult on it or consider the implications of the particular drafting that Senator Lambie has chosen, but we are open to further conversations about resolving this issue.

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

On behalf of the Greens, we acknowledge the concerns that Senator Lambie has—in fact, we've spoken to them on numerous occasions—about the lack of accountability among senior members of the ADF and the defence department. We are, however, not in a position to support these amendments.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.