Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025

Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (18:52): A decision as to whether or not we should send Australians to war should never be made lightly nor on the whim of one or two powerful politicians. But Australia remains one of the few OECD countries that does not have parliamentary scrutiny of such decisions. Australians deserve to know that their government's decisions on defence commitments, defence spending, defence deployments and engagement in conflicts are principled, lawful, based on expert advice and in the national interest.

The appalling decision to commit Australia and our troops to the invasion of Iraq should never be repeated. The decisions made by Defence come at enormous cost to taxpayers—$59 billion this year alone—and they can cost Australian lives. Making such consequential decisions in secrecy is unacceptable.

In recent years, we've heard of many Defence procurement failures, like the $100 million contract with KPMG, an external review of which identified governance failures, financial irregularities, lack of accountability and poor spend visibility, failed processes, rushed decision-making and poor oversight. Last year, an Auditor-General's report revealed that the Australian Defence Force's 20 biggest ongoing acquisitions are delayed on average by 25 months.

Cumulatively, they are more than 37 years behind schedule. There are acquisitions like the Hunter class frigates, which were originally expected to cost us $30 billion but are now at $45 billion and climbing, and the F-35 fighter jets, first commissioned in 2002, meant to achieve final operational capacity in 2023 and still pending. We all know that Australia's unique strategic circumstances—the fact that we have a vast continent and vast expanses of ocean to protect and that we are at a great distance from our potential adversaries—mean that defence procurements do have complexities and challenges.

But we have to have transparency around those procurements such that the Australian public can have faith in our processes and in our government's processes, promises and delivery. Spending $368 billion on nuclear powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement has left many Australians doubting the wisdom of the two major political parties that signed us up to that deal, and the decision has been brought into further question by the fact that the Prime Minister who signed us up for AUKUS, having not consulted parliament or the opposition at that time, is now working for a defence contractor.

While two-thirds of Australians now say that they are happy to potentially have those submarines, only 37 per cent believe that they will improve our national security, and only one-quarter of Australians think that the price we are going to pay for AUKUS, if it is limited to $368 billion, is reasonable. That's why earlier this year I called for a parliamentary review of Australia's commitments under the AUKUS agreement.

An inquiry as to Pillar I of AUKUS remains on track for delivery against the timelines and objectives set out in the 2023 Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS. It is my belief and that of many of my constituents that a long-term national commitment this big and this expensive should be the subject of regular reviews. The proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence could be a means to such reviews.

It will create a body of elected representatives who are able to scrutinise the information and the processes that lead to decisions regarding our defence commitments, defence spending, defence deployments and engagement in conflict. It will be empowered to report back to parliament and to the Australian people. It will at times need to consider those decisions and issues confidentially.

In relation to defence activities and the intelligence upon which those decisions are based, there are safety, efficacy and strategic reasons for the nondisclosure of some information. A joint standing committee, in these circumstances, is an appropriate addition to public oversight of information that is otherwise non-disclosable. It might determine that information is fine to be in the public domain, or it might determine that such information should not be disclosed.

It can either agree or disagree with decisions made on the basis of the information available to it. The committee could then report to both houses of parliament unconstrained from reporting its findings and conclusions, whether or not the information on which those conclusions are based was felt to be disclosable information. The fact is that the opacity of the AUKUS agreement is a matter of significant public concern given the size of the investment and the significance of our strategic commitment.

Given that fact, it's only appropriate that the composition of the joint standing committee be independent of those parties which made the agreement. It should be able to review the information supporting that decision-making, and it should be tasked with reporting back to the House on whether or not all aspects of AUKUS meet procurement standards and are in the national interest.

This initiative is welcome, but only if the committee is representative of this house and of this country. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence must be able to provide independent and balanced insights or assurance to Australians on AUKUS and other defence matters. But, according to the bill under consideration, the composition of the committee is to be determined by the Prime Minister in consultation with recognised political parties.

I note that the Liberal Party this evening is arguing for it to include only members of the major parties. With record numbers of Independent MPs in this House and with more Australians voting for Independent candidates at every election—one-third at the last election voted for Independents and members of small parties—a committee that includes only representatives of political parties would not be a true representation of the elected members of this parliament or of the wishes of Australian voters.

In order to fairly and accurately reflect the democratic underpinnings of this place, the composition of all parliamentary committees should reflect the composition of our parliament. That should include crossbenchers and independent MPs. The model for selection should be based on the standard parliamentary procedure.

There is no possible reasonable justification for the departure from that standard, and I challenge the minister to suggest one. On that note, earlier today the member for Hume indicated his intention to move an amendment to the effect that only members of major parties and, according to his amendment, only members completely committed to more defence spending and to the AUKUS commitment as it currently stands should be eligible for membership of this committee.

I thank the member for Hume for reminding us in that second reading amendment of the desperation with which the opposition wants to avoid exposure of its wasteful defence spending by controlling the membership of the committee and limiting its own accountability. I do note that, as yet, the member for Hume seems to have forgotten that you have to be on the speaking list to move an amendment, and he is not yet on the speaking list.

Fantastic—great move. Independent members of parliament are growing in number because our communities are seeking genuine representation and objective and constructive oversight of this government. After the parties' recent appalling manipulation of electoral laws to stitch up the donation reform against Independent candidates, it would be hugely disappointing and insulting to the electorates that we represent if the parliamentary committee system becomes yet another example of the major political parties' attempt to undermine our democratic foundations.

Australians want transparency, openness and inclusiveness from this government and from this parliament. They want the government, the parliament and the committees that we form to represent them and their desires and wishes. They do not want government to be limited to the representatives of parties who are trying to shore up their sinking fortunes, their policy poverty and their internal dissent by shutting up shop against crossbenchers and members of minor parties.

So I ask the government to act in all Australians' best interests when they are legislating this new means of defence oversight.