Bill Debate · In Committee
Senate · Tuesday 3 March 2026
Continued from Monday 2 March 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate considered an amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to expand the membership of the proposed secret parliamentary committee on defence. Senator Shoebridge questioned whether the executive would consult the committee before supporting military actions, citing concerns about transparency and legality. Minister McAllister defended the executive prerogative over war powers and the necessity of classified oversight for national security. Senator Hanson-Young argued that the committee structure facilitated collusion between major parties and lacked public accountability. The amendment was defeated, and the bill was reported without amendment.
The amendment was defeated by a vote of 16 to 28, and the bill was reported without amendment.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Ghosh opened the consideration in committee by noting that a division on amendment 1, moved by Senator Shoebridge, had been deferred. Ghosh stated that the vote on that amendment would proceed immediately. Ghosh formally put the question that the amendment be agreed to.
Government response
McAllister stated that decisions on international armed conflict remain an executive prerogative exercised by the National Security Committee of the Cabinet. McAllister argued that this approach is consistent with constitutional arrangements and allows for appropriate transparency through ministerial statements in Parliament. McAllister defended the need for a secret committee to handle classified information safely, asserting that it augments existing scrutiny mechanisms rather than replacing them.
Shoebridge questioned whether the new committee would be consulted before Australia supported military actions, using hypothetical scenarios involving conflicts in Iran. Shoebridge sought clarification on whether the committee would have insight into the legality of such interventions before the government adopted a position.
Hanson-Young argued that the committee's secret nature lacked transparency and allowed major parties to collude without public scrutiny. Hanson-Young contended that the government failed to address questions about the legality of recent military interventions and that the committee structure excluded broader parliamentary representation.