Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee

Opened the debate

Shoebridge moved an amendment to explicitly include crossbench members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives on the committee. Shoebridge argued that the bill as drafted allowed major parties to exclude dissenting voices, thereby undermining democratic principles and robust debate. Shoebridge contended that the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security lacked genuine dissent, citing a lack of differing opinions over two decades. Shoebridge stated that while the amendment would not remove major party dominance, it would ensure at least one contrary voice was present to challenge government and opposition consensus.

Government response

McAllister indicated the government would not support the Greens amendment, defending the proposed committee structure as consistent with the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. McAllister argued that the legislation did not restrict appointments to specific parties but allowed the Prime Minister to appoint members in consultation with opposition and recognised political party leaders. McAllister rejected claims that the committee would lack robust debate, citing public hearings as evidence of rigorous scrutiny. McAllister clarified that the bill provides for government and non-government members, with Senate members appointed by resolution upon nomination by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Opposition response

Chandler stated the opposition would not support the Greens amendment, emphasising that defence matters require continuity, competence, and bipartisanship rather than political manoeuvring. Chandler argued that membership should be limited to government and opposition parties, following the convention established for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security over the past two decades. Chandler contended that including Greens or independent members would politicise classified defence issues and potentially undermine trust with international allies.