Division Description Changes — Committees — Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Northern Australia Joint Select Committee; Membership — 6th Sep 2022

Change	Division
senate vote 2022-09-06#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-09-09 09:19:59	Title ~~Committees — Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Northern Australia Joint Select Committee; Membership~~ Committees - Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Northern Australia Joint Select Committee - Membership Description ~~<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>~~ <p>This motion amends the government's motion to appoint senators to the PJCIS and the Northern Australia committee in the terms circulated in the chamber. The Greens are calling for these nominations to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to not to be approved because the current proposal fails to comply with the requirements of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001; namely, that nominations should not be considered or finalised until after the Senate is notified by the leader of the government that appropriate consultation has occurred, and that the committee membership reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the parliament.</p> The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-06.134.10) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. This means the original motion will remain unchanged. ### Amendment text > That the motion to appoint senators to committees be amended as follows: > *> At** the end of the motion add:* > *>> , except in rel*ation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that in relation to that committee: >> *>> (a) the nominations advised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate not be approved, as the Leader of the Government has not consulted the leaders of each recognised, non-government, political party in the Senate about the membership of the committee (as** required by subsection 14(4) of Schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001); and* >> *>> (b) nominations for membership of the committee not be further** considered until the Senate is notified by the Leader of the Government that:* >> *>>> i. this** consultation has occurred, and* >>> *>>> ii. as required by subsection 14(5) of Schedule 1 of the Act, due regard has been had to the desirability of ensuring** that the composition of the committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament.* ### Original motion text > That senators be appointed to committees as follows: > > Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee— > >> Appointed—Senators Birmingham, Ciccone, Paterson, Marielle Smith and Walsh, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 > > Northern Australia—Joint Select Committee— > >> Appointed—Senators Dodson and Green <p>At the last election a third of the population of Australia voted for someone other than the Labor and coalition parties. They elected a diverse parliament, including a record 16 Greens. It was a clear message that people are ready to move beyond a limited two-party system and towards a parliament whose decision-making reflects the diversities of the communities that we represent. Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must—according to that schedule 'must'—consult with the leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the Senate and isn't currently in government. This has not happened. The Intelligence Services Act 2001 is clear that the Prime Minister must consult with the leader of each recognised political party—so not just the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but the Prime Minister must consult—that is represented in the House and does not form part of government. That has not happened either.</p> <p>Instead of consultation, we've received a letter with the government's proposed nominations. It's simply a statement. It's not a consultation, and so it's not what the act requires. The act also requires:</p> <p class="italic">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.</p> ~~<p>A committee comprised entirely of Labor and coalition members clearly fails that requirement—that statutory requirement.</p>~~ <p>Mr Adam Bandt, Leader of the Greens, and I have written to the Prime Minister and to the leader in the Senate to alert them to this. We've proposed that Senator Shoebridge, who holds the relevant portfolios on behalf of our party, be included on the committee in compliance with the act. But this has been ignored. Not only have the Greens been ignored but the whole crossbench has been ignored. The PJCIS has long been a stitch-up by the two big parties without a single dissenting voice to the old party consensus, and we need that dissent because all too often complex national security legislation is presented to this parliament with a phone book of amendments coming out of the PJCIS, with little to no warning, and is often rammed through this place in a matter of hours. When we on the crossbench raise concerns with that or want to refer it to a Senate committee for scrutiny, we're refused because the bill's already been through the PJCIS. But we don't get to participate in that inquiry. We don't get to properly weigh the impact of these laws and the ramifications that they'll have—serious ramifications, in many cases, which often involve the curtailing of rights to procedural justice, rights to privacy and other very significant civil liberties. So, when it comes to protecting rights, when it comes to ensuring that we hold our security agencies accountable, when it comes to protecting the rule of law, it is critical that all voices in this parliament are able to fully participate in the process of deliberation on those laws.</p> <p>But instead, the PJCIS, the closed shop of the Australian security state, the two-party stitch-up in this creeping surveillance state, makes all of these decisions without any dissenting voice or any third-party input. And that is not good for democracy. It is certainly not good for protecting human rights. It is not good for the parliament. It is not good for the people that we are put here to represent. For all of these reasons, we are moving this amendment, because we're sick of the two big parties thinking that you own committees like this, ones that make crucial decisions that impact on people's rights and daily lives. It's not good enough, and it's in breach of the act. So vote how you will, but this isn't over.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>~~ <p>The government opposes the amendment to the motion moved by Senator Waters, and I think we would disagree strongly with Senator Waters's presentation in her remarks that the government has not complied with relevant clauses of the Intelligence Services Act. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has consulted with all leaders of each recognised non-government political party in the Senate about the membership of the committee, as required by clause 14. It might not have been the consultation process that you were after, but we have met the requirements of the act. We have consulted as required by clause 14 of schedule 1.</p> <p>Yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate sent correspondence to Senator Waters, as Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, in accordance with statutory requirements. The correspondence was also provided to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Mr Bandt. No response to that correspondence has been received from Senator Waters. The Leader of the Government in the Senate sent the same correspondence to other party leaders, including Senator Birmingham, Senator McKenzie, Senator Lambie, Senator Hanson and Senator Babet.</p> <p>I can assure Senator Waters that extensive consideration was also given by the Prime Minister to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the parliament. I table the correspondence sent by Senator Wong to Senator Waters.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>I don't wish to detain the Senate, as the appointment of members to this committee should be a relatively straightforward process. I think Senator Gallagher has just outlined the government's actions in relation to compliance with the provisions and requirements in relation to appointments to this committee. This committee is unique in relation to the functions it fills and the way in which appointments processes are undertaken with the stewardship of the Prime Minister and the government in that regard. The opposition respects the processes that have been put in place in that regard in terms of ensuring that this committee is composed in a way which can enable it to fulfil the very sensitive undertakings that it is tasked with. The opposition also respects the process that the government has applied and the conventions attached to that process. It therefore does not support the amendment proposed by the Greens and would urge the Senate to proceed to ensure that this important committee can get on with the work that it is tasked with doing. I thank the Senate.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p>~~ <p>It's not a good start for a new government to directly flout the law in relation to one of the key committees that it seeks to establish in the life of a new parliament that has, if I might remind members of this chamber, about one in four senators from the crossbench, who are totally excluded from this committee. About 15 per cent of the other place is on the crossbench and is totally excluded from this committee. As Senator Waters said, one in three Australians voted for non-government and non-coalition representatives in this parliament, and then this government and the opposition—Labor and the coalition—have this old-boys club stitch-up to start the new parliament. That's not the parliament that Australia voted for.</p> <p>Limiting the membership of this committee to just the Labor and Liberal parties is more than the closed-shop politics as usual we saw under the Morrison government. It's remarkable, though, because the law requires full consultation, in clause 14 of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act:</p> <p class="italic">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.</p> <p>That's what the law says, and you have directly flouted the law. We hear these mealy-mouthed comments from the opposition, seemingly okay with the government breaching the law. We have this nonsense proposition from the government that they have consulted. The problem with not consulting is that it is mandatory. You can't choose to consult or not consult, because the law requires you to consult. In relation to the Senate, it says:</p> <p class="italic">Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must consult with the Leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the Senate and does not form part of the Government.</p> <p>The Greens put you on notice of your legal obligations to do this, in correspondence co-singed by the Leader of the Greens in the Senate, Senator Waters; by Mr Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Greens in the parliament; and by me. We sent you that correspondence, trying to be helpful, on 26 July 2022. We said, 'These are your legal obligations.' We tried to be helpful. We didn't want you to be breaching the law. We were worried that you were just going to do the usual old boy's club thing and exclude the crossbench. We were trying to be helpful and trying to tell you what you had to do, but you just ignored it.</p> <p>The offence isn't ignoring the correspondence we sent; the offence is ignoring the law and acting unlawfully in setting the membership for one of the key security and intelligence committees in parliament—acting unlawfully in establishing the committee membership of a core legal oversight committee. There's a deep irony in what the government has done here. And the opposition signed on meekly. They just want to keep the club going, so that when they get into government they can hand out the bounty just between the two parties. You think the rest of the country thinks this is acceptable, but it's not.</p> <p>Then we get the specious argument from the government that they have consulted--because they sent a letter. Let's read the letter and work out if anybody in the world, apart from Senator Gallagher, thinks this is consultation. This is what it says: 'Dear Senator Waters, re appointment of members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In accordance with clause 14 of schedule 1 to the Intelligence Services Act 2001, I advise that I intend to nominate the following senators to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham'—he has an interest in this—'Senator Raff Ciccone, Senator James Paterson, Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Jess Walsh'. If that's consultation, there's a lovely little bridge in Sydney that I'd like to sell you.</p> <p>This is nonsense. It's unlawful. It's a stitch up. It's the worst of the kind of politics that the electorate rejected just 108 days ago. This is an unlawful stitch up. I have to say, it may not end here in the Senate. You can't just choose which laws you comply with and which laws you don't. There's nothing super special about being a senator that says you can act contrary to the laws. This isn't just the Senate committee established under rules of this place. This is a statutory joint committee established under laws passed by both houses of parliament and signed off by his nibs the Governor-General. This is the law which you are directly breaching. You think it might end here. Well, it may not end here. This is not going to go away. You can't start a new government by flouting the law and signing on to the old boy's club and think we're just going to take it. We won't.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Larissa Waters~~
This motion amends the government's motion to appoint senators to the PJCIS and the Northern Australia committee in the terms circulated in the chamber. The Greens are calling for these nominations to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to not to be approved because the current proposal fails to comply with the requirements of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001; namely, that nominations should not be considered or finalised until after the Senate is notified by the leader of the government that appropriate consultation has occurred, and that the committee membership reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the parliament.
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-06.134.10) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. This means the original motion will remain unchanged.
### Amendment text
> *That the motion to appoint senators to committees be amended as follows:*
>
> *At the end of the motion add:*
>
>> *, except in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that in relation to that committee:*
>>
>> *(a) the nominations advised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate not be approved, as the Leader of the Government has not consulted the leaders of each recognised, non-government, political party in the Senate about the membership of the committee (as required by subsection 14(4) of Schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001); and*
>>
>> *(b) nominations for membership of the committee not be further considered until the Senate is notified by the Leader of the Government that:*
>>
>>> *i. this consultation has occurred, and*
>>>
>>> *ii. as required by subsection 14(5) of Schedule 1 of the Act, due regard has been had to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament.*
### Original motion text
> *That senators be appointed to committees as follows:*
>
> *Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—*
>
>> *Appointed—Senators Birmingham, Ciccone, Paterson, Marielle Smith and Walsh, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001*
>
> *Northern Australia—Joint Select Committee—*
>
>> *Appointed—Senators Dodson and Green*
At the last election a third of the population of Australia voted for someone other than the Labor and coalition parties. They elected a diverse parliament, including a record 16 Greens. It was a clear message that people are ready to move beyond a limited two-party system and towards a parliament whose decision-making reflects the diversities of the communities that we represent. Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must—according to that schedule 'must'—consult with the leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the Senate and isn't currently in government. This has not happened. The Intelligence Services Act 2001 is clear that the Prime Minister must consult with the leader of each recognised political party—so not just the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but the Prime Minister must consult—that is represented in the House and does not form part of government. That has not happened either.
Instead of consultation, we've received a letter with the government's proposed nominations. It's simply a statement. It's not a consultation, and so it's not what the act requires. The act also requires:
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.
~~A committee comprised entirely of Labor and coalition members clearly fails that requirement—that statutory requirement.~~
Mr Adam Bandt, Leader of the Greens, and I have written to the Prime Minister and to the leader in the Senate to alert them to this. We've proposed that Senator Shoebridge, who holds the relevant portfolios on behalf of our party, be included on the committee in compliance with the act. But this has been ignored. Not only have the Greens been ignored but the whole crossbench has been ignored. The PJCIS has long been a stitch-up by the two big parties without a single dissenting voice to the old party consensus, and we need that dissent because all too often complex national security legislation is presented to this parliament with a phone book of amendments coming out of the PJCIS, with little to no warning, and is often rammed through this place in a matter of hours. When we on the crossbench raise concerns with that or want to refer it to a Senate committee for scrutiny, we're refused because the bill's already been through the PJCIS. But we don't get to participate in that inquiry. We don't get to properly weigh the impact of these laws and the ramifications that they'll have—serious ramifications, in many cases, which often involve the curtailing of rights to procedural justice, rights to privacy and other very significant civil liberties. So, when it comes to protecting rights, when it comes to ensuring that we hold our security agencies accountable, when it comes to protecting the rule of law, it is critical that all voices in this parliament are able to fully participate in the process of deliberation on those laws.
But instead, the PJCIS, the closed shop of the Australian security state, the two-party stitch-up in this creeping surveillance state, makes all of these decisions without any dissenting voice or any third-party input. And that is not good for democracy. It is certainly not good for protecting human rights. It is not good for the parliament. It is not good for the people that we are put here to represent. For all of these reasons, we are moving this amendment, because we're sick of the two big parties thinking that you own committees like this, ones that make crucial decisions that impact on people's rights and daily lives. It's not good enough, and it's in breach of the act. So vote how you will, but this isn't over.
~~Katy Gallagher~~
The government opposes the amendment to the motion moved by Senator Waters, and I think we would disagree strongly with Senator Waters's presentation in her remarks that the government has not complied with relevant clauses of the Intelligence Services Act. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has consulted with all leaders of each recognised non-government political party in the Senate about the membership of the committee, as required by clause 14. It might not have been the consultation process that you were after, but we have met the requirements of the act. We have consulted as required by clause 14 of schedule 1.
Yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate sent correspondence to Senator Waters, as Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, in accordance with statutory requirements. The correspondence was also provided to the Leader of the Australian Greens, Mr Bandt. No response to that correspondence has been received from Senator Waters. The Leader of the Government in the Senate sent the same correspondence to other party leaders, including Senator Birmingham, Senator McKenzie, Senator Lambie, Senator Hanson and Senator Babet.
I can assure Senator Waters that extensive consideration was also given by the Prime Minister to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the parliament. I table the correspondence sent by Senator Wong to Senator Waters.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
I don't wish to detain the Senate, as the appointment of members to this committee should be a relatively straightforward process. I think Senator Gallagher has just outlined the government's actions in relation to compliance with the provisions and requirements in relation to appointments to this committee. This committee is unique in relation to the functions it fills and the way in which appointments processes are undertaken with the stewardship of the Prime Minister and the government in that regard. The opposition respects the processes that have been put in place in that regard in terms of ensuring that this committee is composed in a way which can enable it to fulfil the very sensitive undertakings that it is tasked with. The opposition also respects the process that the government has applied and the conventions attached to that process. It therefore does not support the amendment proposed by the Greens and would urge the Senate to proceed to ensure that this important committee can get on with the work that it is tasked with doing. I thank the Senate.
~~David Shoebridge~~
It's not a good start for a new government to directly flout the law in relation to one of the key committees that it seeks to establish in the life of a new parliament that has, if I might remind members of this chamber, about one in four senators from the crossbench, who are totally excluded from this committee. About 15 per cent of the other place is on the crossbench and is totally excluded from this committee. As Senator Waters said, one in three Australians voted for non-government and non-coalition representatives in this parliament, and then this government and the opposition—Labor and the coalition—have this old-boys club stitch-up to start the new parliament. That's not the parliament that Australia voted for.
Limiting the membership of this committee to just the Labor and Liberal parties is more than the closed-shop politics as usual we saw under the Morrison government. It's remarkable, though, because the law requires full consultation, in clause 14 of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services 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.
That's what the law says, and you have directly flouted the law. We hear these mealy-mouthed comments from the opposition, seemingly okay with the government breaching the law. We have this nonsense proposition from the government that they have consulted. The problem with not consulting is that it is mandatory. You can't choose to consult or not consult, because the law requires you to consult. In relation to the Senate, it says:
Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must consult with the Leader of each recognised political party that is represented in the Senate and does not form part of the Government.
The Greens put you on notice of your legal obligations to do this, in correspondence co-singed by the Leader of the Greens in the Senate, Senator Waters; by Mr Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Greens in the parliament; and by me. We sent you that correspondence, trying to be helpful, on 26 July 2022. We said, 'These are your legal obligations.' We tried to be helpful. We didn't want you to be breaching the law. We were worried that you were just going to do the usual old boy's club thing and exclude the crossbench. We were trying to be helpful and trying to tell you what you had to do, but you just ignored it.
The offence isn't ignoring the correspondence we sent; the offence is ignoring the law and acting unlawfully in setting the membership for one of the key security and intelligence committees in parliament—acting unlawfully in establishing the committee membership of a core legal oversight committee. There's a deep irony in what the government has done here. And the opposition signed on meekly. They just want to keep the club going, so that when they get into government they can hand out the bounty just between the two parties. You think the rest of the country thinks this is acceptable, but it's not.
Then we get the specious argument from the government that they have consulted--because they sent a letter. Let's read the letter and work out if anybody in the world, apart from Senator Gallagher, thinks this is consultation. This is what it says: 'Dear Senator Waters, re appointment of members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In accordance with clause 14 of schedule 1 to the Intelligence Services Act 2001, I advise that I intend to nominate the following senators to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham'—he has an interest in this—'Senator Raff Ciccone, Senator James Paterson, Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Jess Walsh'. If that's consultation, there's a lovely little bridge in Sydney that I'd like to sell you.
This is nonsense. It's unlawful. It's a stitch up. It's the worst of the kind of politics that the electorate rejected just 108 days ago. This is an unlawful stitch up. I have to say, it may not end here in the Senate. You can't just choose which laws you comply with and which laws you don't. There's nothing super special about being a senator that says you can act contrary to the laws. This isn't just the Senate committee established under rules of this place. This is a statutory joint committee established under laws passed by both houses of parliament and signed off by his nibs the Governor-General. This is the law which you are directly breaching. You think it might end here. Well, it may not end here. This is not going to go away. You can't start a new government by flouting the law and signing on to the old boy's club and think we're just going to take it. We won't.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~