‘Activist’ Greens warned over Defence committee bid

The Greens demand a seat on a powerful new parliamentary committee that will have unprecedented access to the nation’s defence secrets.

Greens senator David Shoebridge, pictured during a Senate estimates hearing, is demanding a seat on a powerful new parliamentary defence committee. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Greens are demanding a seat on a powerful new parliamentary committee that will have unprecedented access to the nation’s defence secrets, sparking a backlash from the Coalition and national security experts.

Senior Defence figures resisted the creation of the new joint committee on defence, fearing it would expose the department to an ­unworkable level of oversight.

But Defence Minister Richard Marles forced the issue, committing $17.5m in this week’s budget to fund it for the next decade.

The committee, to be modelled on the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, will be established under legislation in coming weeks.

Its members will be permitted to receive classified information and request high-level security briefings behind closed doors. The committee is set to replicate PJCIS rules that stipulate a total membership of 13, with at least two ­government and two non-government members per chamber, and no requirement for cross bench representation.

Members will ultimately be nominated by the government, giving the Prime Minister the final say over who gets appointed.

Greens senator David Shoebridge flagged an amendment to ensure the committee’s membership “reflects the diversity of the parliament”.

“It is critically important to have a Greens representative on there,” Senator Shoebridge told The Weekend Australian.

“Over the next 10 years the defence budget is estimated to be three-quarters of a trillion dollars, funding some of the most complex and high-risk procurement projects the commonwealth has ever undertaken.

“It would be reckless to limit the oversight of those projects. History shows that leaving it to the usual suspects in Labor and the Coalition is a recipe for disaster.”

Defence Minister Richard Marles. Picture: AFP

Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

But opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said only “the parties of government” should be allowed seats on the committee.

“The Greens are fringe activists, hostile to AUKUS and our closest ally in the Middle East,” he said. “Moreover, they don’t support the flag our troops wear into battle, believing it to be a symbol of colonial oppression.

“They are welcome to pitch a tent on the lawn outside the parliamentary briefing room.”

Former defence official Peter Jennings said the Greens were “political saboteurs”, and allowing them on to the committee would risk having its agenda hijacked.

“They have shown themselves to be so fundamentally opposed to the foundations of Australian defence thinking that it would be doing immense damage to Australia’s security interests for them to be on there,” Mr Jennings said.

Labor’s Julian Hill is favoured to chair the committee, while Liberal senator David Fawcett is expected to be deputy chair.

Senior sources said that there had been “quite a bit of pushback” from top Defence officials over the ­establishment of the committee, arguing it would create a massive workload for a department that is already stretched to the limit.

But the internal critics are said to have come around to the idea, accepting that it will strengthen the long-term relationship between Defence and the parliament.

The committee will ramp up parliamentary scrutiny of major acquisitions such as nuclear submarines and the Hunter-class frigates, and allow members to challenge senior Defence officials on important strategic settings.

Mr Marles said: “The parliamentary joint committee on ­defence will inject greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio.”

Mr Hastie praised the government for agreeing to establish the committee, saying it would allow the “unblinking eye of the parliament” to have much greater oversight of Defence.