BILLS - Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024

Second Reading

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:03): I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. I came onto the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2018. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, being afforded the honour of going onto that committee. Speaking of honours, I had the honour of serving on that committee with the late Senator Jim Molan. Whilst we were, clearly, from very opposing political sides, I learnt a lot from Jim on that committee. In fact, he took me under his wing somewhat and I went on to become the deputy chair from opposition—not only of the defence subcommittee but then also of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

One of the inquiries that we undertook as the defence subcommittee in 2018 was looking at this very topic; it looked at making the defence committee a standalone statutory committee of the parliament. That was for the very reason that a number of members have pointed out in this debate today: we live in a world of increasing complexities within the defence and security arena and that in order to have adequate civilian parliamentary oversight of defence, it was considered necessary for the members of a future committee to be able to hear confidential and secret information.

When you look at the arc of history in relation to this, this committee was first expanded by Gough Whitlam in 1973 to include defence and foreign affairs because we needed increased scrutiny of defence; the former prime minister, in 1973, said as much when he expanded the then committee. I think it is so important that we reflect on a little of this history. Since 1973 defence has been subject to scrutiny by the committee. The then prime minister, the Hon. Gough Whitlam MP, told the House that expanding the role of the former Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to cover the Defence portfolio indicated his government's desire to give parliament its proper role in the study of two important areas of national interest and concern.

In the 51 years since 1973, when the Whitlam government had the intention of providing oversight and scrutiny through a committee, the world has changed markedly. But what hasn't changed is the need for that oversight and scrutiny. I've had the great pleasure over the last few weeks of being present with the deputy speaker in the chair at the moment, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, in undertaking the National Security College course, through the Australian National University, looking at these very issues—secrecy versus oversight, and transparency in a modern world. How do we balance the need for secrecy in protection of our country—and we know we need it—with transparency? One of the examples that was given this morning by a member was the Iraq War; was the prime minister of the day misled? How did it come that we went into that war based on what we now know to be factual inaccuracies? If we ever doubt that we need parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, we should never doubt that because in a modern democracy it is this oversight by elected representatives that provides the foundation and the underpinning.

One of the other observations that has been made to me that I think is so interesting is that the PJCIS, which does very good work in the intelligence space, is a committee that works largely in a bipartisan way. That is because the members of that committee are privy to information that members of parliament normally wouldn't be privy to. Therein is the important message: there is detail, there is nuance, and when it is explained to members of that committee they are very deftly and accurately able to put forward legislation that will progress the security of our intelligence and ensure Australia has an adequately resourced and appropriate underpinning of legislation for our intelligence community. That is so important in the security of our nation. And that is the model being proposed by this legislation.

I get quite agitated when I hear members of the opposition saying the government is trying to water down this legislation, that it's trying to honeycomb this model. As we've heard, the PJCIS has worked very successfully. People have maintained the confidence of that committee, and that is exactly how this new defence committee will operate. The legislation will provide criminal penalties for leaking. The government is in no way trying to water down this new committee. It will be as robust as the PJCIS and will be reflective of our parliament, which I think is an important thing.

I just want to share some of Jim Molan's thoughts from that seminal report that we did back in 2018. I wish that members in the coalition would take some advice from one of their own. As I read these words, I can't help but think of Jim, wherever he may be, flailing against the decision of his counterparts. He fought tooth and nail to stand up a committee like the one that this government wants to deliver for the parliament. And I again say to those members opposite: if you won't listen to us on the government side, then please listen to the words of Jim Molan when he says:

… I now take responsibility for both the Report and this Foreword.

Through its committees, the Parliament discusses and debates complex areas of policy and can reach agreement on solutions that transcend party lines to advance the interests of all Australians. As part of this process, the Defence Sub-Committee is expected to exercise, on behalf of the Parliament, appropriate oversight of the entire defence function across Australia.

This inquiry seeks to move towards bipartisanship on defence policy and so provide greater long-term stability for Defence and its industry partners in the midst of the most significant upgrade of Australia's defences in peacetime. Our recommendation is that the admirable level of bipartisanship achieved within the PJCIS should be the objective of a revamped Defence Sub-committee—

that would in fact sit, as Jim explained it to me, within the model that we are proposing with this legislation.

I will go on quoting Jim:

This inquiry on bipartisanship arose from the Defence Sub-Committee's 2017 Review of the Defence Annual Report 2015-16. That review highlighted the challenges this Sub-Committee faces in seeking to oversight Defence's implementation of the internal reforms arising from the First Principles Review and the progress of the $200 billion investment in new defence capability outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper. We found that greater engagement between the Parliament and Defence would support the implementation of these vitally important reforms.

Now fast forward eight years: we've had a Defence Strategic Review and we have again had another raft of changes in Defence. We are putting more of Australia's hard-earned tax dollars into Defence than ever before—two per cent of GDP—and it is absolutely vital that there is transparency, that there is parliamentary oversight. Australians place their trust in us, as elected representatives, to come here and do our best for them. But I remember Jim saying to me, 'You can't do that with one hand tied behind your back.' He meant you can't do that without access to information.

As the member for Fisher pointed out—he was the chair of the defence subcommittee when I sat as his deputy. Again, I'm sitting on the subcommittee and within the main committee, and I cannot tell you the number of times Defence has said to us—in fact, as recently as last Friday in an update on the fleet—'Look, we'd really like to share more of this with you, but we simply can't.' That has to change. How can we possibly have reasonable oversight and scrutiny of our incredible Defence Force? I apportion no criticism whatsoever to Defence, but we do need to work with them and we do need to have all of the information so that Defence can continue to not only defend our great nation but also work with our industry partners.

Again, that was one of the things that came up all those years ago in 2018, when we did this review. We had a number of people from industry saying to us, 'The only way to really have a well-functioning and integrated Defence Force with industry and correct and appropriate parliamentary oversight is with the committee being fully briefed.'

Raytheon Australia highlighted the importance of increasing transparency to improve political debate:

The best way to encourage a shared political position on Defence capability is to ensure that transparency in the capability plan is maintained. One of the reasons parliamentary committee deliberations get bogged down on these issues is that the level of understanding on the part of committee members of Defence capability is often low. Maximum possible transparency would lead to more mature political discussion on capability and generate a more informed level of debate.

That was Raytheon Australia from that inquiry that we did back in 2018. This is also about defence literacy. We parliamentarians don't all come to this place with defence qualifications or experience. I want to recognise those members who sit amongst us who have worked for us either in the defence capacity or in defence industry. They have provided great service to our nation.

But there are those of us, like me, who represent places like Williamtown. RAAF Base Williamtown is not only the pre-eminent F-35 base in Australia; it also supports around 5,000 people in my seat who call RAAF Base Williamtown their place of employment. I made it my business when I came here to improve my defence literacy. I've done that over the last eight years of working closely with people from RAAF Base Williamtown, and I will always thank them for their patience with me and their instruction while I have been learning those things. I've also worked with colleagues and other Defence personnel across the nation, and I have learnt that you don't know what you don't know. You need to seek information and be briefed.

That is why I am speaking so wholeheartedly on behalf of this bill. I know that people like Richard Marles, our defence minister, and people who formerly wore the uniform, like the late Senator Jim Molan, are calling for it. If there is an alignment in the thinking of those two people, then surely the current leadership regime of the coalition would take that into account and understand that we're actually at a seminal, pivotal point in Australia's defence trajectory. We know the world is changing under our feet; it is moving. We need to have appropriate oversight. We do need to have scrutiny. It must come from democratically elected people. We must hold up the tenets of democracy. But the only way to do that successfully and genuinely in a bipartisan way is to have a statutory committee like the one proposed in this bill, where members are fully briefed and face criminal penalties if they leak from that committee. It is absolutely essential.