Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (12:55): I rise in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. I think this is a really important move, and it's one that I wholeheartedly support. Let's look at why. We look at our strategic environment, and defence is only more important now, and it's only a more important consideration for this parliament and future parliaments than it has been before. We do live in uncertain times, and our defence community and our defence forces are absolutely integral to maintaining our security.

I must say that I was really surprised to see that defence was actually covered in the joint committee with foreign affairs and trade, and then foreign affairs and aid. I sought to actually join the defence subcommittee this term and have joined the bigger committee because I thought it was such an important area. But, again, I was very surprised, because defence is such an important part of our country and our security. It is such an important part of our budget. I'd just assumed that the parliament would have a standing standalone defence committee as partners such as the US and the UK have. So I think it's a very commonsense recommendation from the former committee that this be established, and I think it's very commonsense to actually establish it in this parliament. We need accountability and transparency, and we need a depth of examination of Defence because of the incredibly important role that it plays. I think we also need to recognise that to have proper scrutiny of Defence will, on occasion, require a different level of security clearance and different level of security disclosure than in the normal case of committees.

I want to then talk briefly to the composition, and I support the composition that has been outlined in the papers, but I'd like to make a few comments to it. It's going to be seven government members and six non-government members. I'd like to urge the government and future governments to reflect on the composition of the parliament and the composition of the votes in the country and make sure that the defence committee reflects that, because around a third of Australians did not vote for the major parties in the last election, and that's a similar level to the previous election. In important areas such as defence, if there are no voices to represent that third of the country that did not vote for the major parties, then I think that actually reduces trust in the system for all those people who were seeking to be represented by alternative members of the community. I think that the government should bear that in mind in relation to who it puts forward and who goes onto this committee.

I'd also like to note the opposition's concern that there could be crossbench members of this committee. I would like to note, from a security point of view, there have been various slurs, I would say, made of crossbenchers. 'Slurs' is probably a bit of a harsh term—'imputation'.

Mr Tehan: It is a little bit harsh. It's 'constructive engagement'.

Ms SPENDER: Sorry, I'll withdraw that. There's been constructive rejection of crossbench contribution here. I would like to make the observation that I'm on the economics committee. Last term, we actually had a breach of confidentiality on the economics committee, and the only person who couldn't have done it is a member of the crossbench, because I wasn't present for that meeting. Members of both the major parties were. So, in that particular meeting—it was the RBA meeting. I'm saying this to a fellow member of that committee—oh, you weren't, actually, sorry; I'm confused, Gordon. But I think the point is made that, with the right selection of people, you can have a degree of confidence.

One final comment that I would like to make is actually about a broader issue on transparency. I note that in some of our partners, like the US, the committee for defence is a very public body as well as one that deals with matters of high security. I think we should consider that in this parliament, because defence should be more of a national conversation than it is, particularly in the times that we find ourselves. I think that the committee could act, in terms of how its hearings are developed and how it's held, as a way of opening the conversation with the Australian people about the needs and the priorities of our defence forces and how that affects and reflects the priorities and needs of the rest of our country. I think that is something that we should consider, because defence is not something in isolation; the country, including, particularly, businesses and also communities, are at the heart of national security. Therefore, they need to be engaged in this question of how we keep our country safe. I think they need to be aware, appropriately, of some of the challenges currently facing our country from a defence point of view.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Sharkie ): It now being 1 pm, the member is interrupted and the debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.