This bill became law on Mar 13th, 2026.
Government & democracy
Creates a new parliamentary committee to give Parliament stronger ongoing oversight of Defence.
A 2023 parliamentary inquiry found Defence oversight was inadequate because it did not properly balance accountability and transparency with national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage.. The bill responds by creating a new joint parliamentary committee with powers to review Defence and handle classified informationSensitive information that is protected because revealing it could harm security or operations. in private.
Before this bill, Parliament’s main Defence oversight arrangements were found to be too weak because they did not properly balance public accountability with the need to protect sensitive national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage. information. After a 2023 parliamentary inquiry recommended a new model, the bill set up a dedicated joint committeeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. with powers to examine Defence administration, spending, capability and operations in private, including access to classified material and penalties for improper disclosure.
Criticism of the bill was fairly limited because most speakers backed creating the committee. The main objections were about who should be allowed to sit on it, whether major parties would dominate it, and whether the secrecy and information-sharing rules go too far.
Assistant Minister for Defence Peter Khalil MP introduced this bill. In the recorded Senate second-reading vote, support came from Labor, One Nation, Liberal, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 13 Mar 2026
Final passage
No counted final vote
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
147 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Creates a new parliamentary committee to give Parliament stronger ongoing oversight of Defence.
Lets this committee review how the Defence Force, Defence Department and Veterans’ Affairs are run, including spending, military capability, conflicts and major non-combat operationsDefence operations that support an objective without direct fighting, such as evacuations or disaster response..
Gives the committee power to call people for evidence and require documents when they are relevant to its work.
Keeps much of the committee’s work private so it can receive secret defence information without publicly exposing material that could harm national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage. or operations.
Makes it a criminal offence for committee members, staff and some attending MPs to wrongly use or reveal protected defence information.
The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 implements this recommendation, inserting a new Part VIIIAB in the Defence Act 1903 (Defence Act) to create the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence (the Committee).Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum
The Committee will be responsible for reviewing, monitoring and reporting on the administration and operations of all Australian defence agencies, including the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The Committee’s functions do not include review of the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO), the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO) or the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), which remain subject to oversight by the PJCIS.Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum
The Committee has the power to obtain information and documents relevant to a matter in respect of which the Committee is performing one or more of its functions. This includes, by notice in writing, requiring a person to appear before the Committee to give evidence or to produce specified documents to the Committee.Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum
A key outcome of establishing the Committee is to ensure that it can receive and consider classified information in the course of performing its functions. This requires the Committee to operate in private, in some circumstances, and for limits to apply to disclosure of information received by the Committee.Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum
The Bill creates criminal offences in relation to the unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information and documents provided to the Committee in connection to its functions, which apply to members of the Committee, their staff, and to other members of Parliament who are authorised to attend meetings of the Committee.Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum
Context
Before this bill, Parliament’s main Defence oversight arrangements were found to be too weak because they did not properly balance public accountability with the need to protect sensitive national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage. information. After a 2023 parliamentary inquiry recommended a new model, the bill set up a dedicated joint committeeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. with powers to examine Defence administration, spending, capability and operations in private, including access to classified material and penalties for improper disclosure.
Defence decision-making inquiry was referred to a parliamentary committee
The Defence Minister referred an inquiry to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on how Australia decides to send service personnel into international armed conflictMilitary operations where Australian forces may face hostile action or combat..
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum ↗Inquiry report found Defence oversight arrangements were inadequate
The committee tabled a report finding existing parliamentary oversight and accountability mechanisms for Defence and related agencies were inadequate in balancing transparency with national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage..
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum ↗Inquiry recommended a new classified-capable Defence oversight committee
The report recommended a new joint statutory committeeA committee created by law, not just by a parliamentary resolution., modelled on the Parliamentary Joint CommitteeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Intelligence and Security, that could request and receive classified informationSensitive information that is protected because revealing it could harm security or operations. and briefings.
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill was introduced to create the Parliamentary Joint CommitteeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Defence
The bill was introduced in the House to implement the inquiry recommendation by inserting a new part into the Defence Act 1903 establishing the new committee.
Parliamentary timeline; Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) explanatory memorandum ↗Second reading debate began on the bill’s purpose and principles
The second reading was moved, opening debate on the bill’s proposal to strengthen Parliament’s ongoing oversight of Defence.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House sent the bill to the Federation Chamber for further debate
After second reading debate, the House referred the bill to the Federation Chamber so consideration could continue there before returning to the House.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House agreed to the bill in principle after debate resumed
The bill was reported back from the Federation Chamber and agreed to at second reading, allowing it to proceed after the House accepted it in principle.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
The House sent the bill to the Federation Chamber so debate could continue in that parallel forum before reporting back to the House.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Second reading debate
Parliamentary Joint CommitteeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 6 of 2025 on 29 October 2025. It raised freedom of expression and privacy issues, including preliminary international human rights legal advice, and sought a ministerial response.
Considered in published report
Report 6 of 2025Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025 on 29 October 2025. It raised personal rights and liberties and parliamentary scrutiny issues and sought a ministerial response.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
The Federation Chamber finished its work on the bill and reported it back to the House for the next formal step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025 on 26 November 2025. It raised personal rights and liberties and parliamentary scrutiny issues and sought a ministerial response.
Considered in published report
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025Parliamentary Joint CommitteeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 8 of 2025 on 11 December 2025. It raised freedom of expression and privacy issues, including preliminary international human rights legal advice, and sought a ministerial response.
Considered in published report
Report 8 of 2025Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Recorded vote: 31 to 10.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Key criticism
Criticism of the bill was fairly limited because most speakers backed creating the committee. The main objections were about who should be allowed to sit on it, whether major parties would dominate it, and whether the secrecy and information-sharing rules go too far.
Most parliamentary criticism was conditional rather than outright opposition: supporters generally wanted the committee created but argued over its membership and safeguards.
No guaranteed crossbench representation
Several crossbench MPs argued the bill is flawed because it does not guarantee seats for independents or other crossbench members, which they said could leave scrutiny of Defence dominated by the major parties.
Risk of a politicised or partisan committee
Coalition speakers warned the committee could be weakened if members they see as unsupportive of Defence policy or AUKUS were appointed, arguing that national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage. oversight should stay bipartisan rather than become a partisan forum.
Secrecy rules may burden free expression and privacy
Human rights scrutiny raised concerns that the bill's protected-information regime and related offence framework may affect freedom of expression and privacy, and sought a ministerial response on those issues.
Personal rights and parliamentary scrutiny concerns
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee said the bill raises concerns about personal rights and liberties and about whether Parliament is getting sufficient scrutiny over the powers and restrictions created by the bill.
Committee design could undermine genuine independence
Some supporters argued the committee would lose credibility if membership is effectively controlled by the major parties or restricted to people with pre-set views, because that would blunt the independent scrutiny the bill is supposed to create.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 31 to 10. Support came from Labor, One Nation, Liberal, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Moved by Angus Taylor (Liberal Party of Australia). Defeated 35 to 97. Support came from Liberal, LNP of Queensland, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents.
Defeated; that amendment did not change the bill.
Moved by Nicolette Boele (Crossbench). Defeated 10 to 98. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, LNP of Queensland, and Nationals.
Defeated; that amendment did not change the bill.
Senate
Moved by David Shoebridge (Australian Greens). Defeated 12 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and LNP of Queensland.
Defeated; that amendment did not change the bill.
Defeated 13 to 28. Support came from Greens and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, LNP of Queensland, and minor parties and independents.
Defeated; that amendment did not change the bill.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Khalil supports the bill and wants it passed because he says a dedicated parliamentary joint committeeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Defence will provide stronger independent oversight and accountability for agencies with extraordinary powers while protecting national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage..
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge says the Greens oppose the bill because it would create a secret, government-dominated defence committee that he argues will rubber-stamp failed defence spending and AUKUS decisions instead of providing real parliamentary oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗Taylor says the coalition will support the bill's passage because it backs a parliamentary joint committeeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on defence, but he argues the committee must stay limited to government and opposition members who support stronger defence spending and AUKUS.
Read in Hansard ↗Katter opposes the bill, arguing it would create a parliamentary "Star Chamber" that second-guesses soldiers and takes power away from individuals and the armed forces.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
15 speakers · 17 contributions · 14 support · 1 mixed
“I spoke very strongly in support of this bill on 24 July, and I do so again today. It's something that's very dear to my heart because, when I was chair of the defence subcommittee, I did the work to put this forward. It builds, as I will acknowledge in a moment, on a legacy of many coalition members, including former senator Fawcett, the late Senator Molan and former senator Reynolds, who have advocated for this reform. The irony for poor former senator Reynolds, of course, was that, as chair of the subcommittee, she advocated for the reform and then they made her defence minister. Then she wasn't allowed to implement her own bill because the government wouldn't actually support it. But, anyway, here we are.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Establishing this committee is a high priority for the Albanese government, and we're committed to doing so. I call on the parliament to take a bipartisan and collaborative approach and allow this bill and its enabling legislation to be passed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This bill represents a step forward in our commitment to ensuring transparency, accountability and robust oversight within our national defence framework and a step toward bringing about recommendations made by a number of inquiries—namely, as part of the inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, the report of which was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in March 2023.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Our allies have this oversight. Our experts have long recommended it. Our times demand it. I hope that, at last, this parliament, with this bill, will finally deliver it. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I really welcome this reform. I acknowledge the stakeholders that contributed to the report, particularly Australians for War Powers Reform and the Medical Association for Prevention of War. It's good to get to the point where we are considering this reform, and I sincerely look forward to the creation of this new parliamentary committee on defence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Khalil, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Khalil supports the bill and wants it passed because he says a dedicated parliamentary joint committeeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Defence will provide stronger independent oversight and accountability for agencies with extraordinary powers while protecting national securityMeasures that protect Australia from threats such as espionage, attack or sabotage.. He argues the current oversight arrangements are inadequate and that the new committee will improve scrutiny of Defence and related agencies, including in classified settings.
“Today I rise in support of the Albanese Labor government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish a parliamentary joint committee on Defence.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS;Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025;Consideration in Detail - 05 Nov 2025
Khalil says the government opposes the proposed amendment because the bill's committee membership arrangements are deliberately modelled on the successful Parliamentary Joint CommitteeA committee made up of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. on Intelligence and Security and should remain unchanged.
“The government will not be supporting this amendment to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Today I rise in support of the Albanese Labor government's Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish a parliamentary joint committee on defence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will allow an enhanced transparency, an enhanced accountability, and a better oversight of defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in strong support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so mindful of the gravity of decisions that we entrust to our defence organisation and to the Australian Defence Force and respectful of the responsibility the parliament bears to provide both oversight and confidence on behalf of the Australian people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The parliament plays a crucial role in scrutinising and debating decisions of the executive government and the implementation of those decisions by departments and agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will provide oversight of all areas of our defence ecosystem. The circumstances demand a coordinated, whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach to our nation's defence. That's why this legislation is so important.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, an important and timely reform that will strengthen transparency, accountability and oversight across our defence establishment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing the PJCD.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does not solve every question about war powers or defence governance, and it does not attempt to. What it does do is make a practical, carefully designed improvement to the way this parliament performs its oversight and scrutiny role. It responds to considered recommendations. It draws on an existing model that has proven to be effective through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It balances transparency with the protection of national security. It strengthens our capacity to honour the responsibilities we carry towards the Australian people and the members of the Australian Defence Force. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the Senate and support its passage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by O'Neill on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Senator O'Neill supports the bill and urges the Senate to pass it because a dedicated joint defence committee would improve parliamentary oversight, handle classified material securely and strengthen accountability, capability and support for defence personnel. She argues it is a practical and important reform that better equips parliament to oversee defence in a more contested strategic environment.
“The role of committees in undertaking the work that cannot be done on the fly in public, in this chamber and the other one, is vital to the nation's security and wellbeing. I think of Anzac commemoration events and the pride that Australians have in the defence of democracy. In the current environment, the defence of the nation requires this step change. This is an important addition to the capacity of our nation to defend itself. I commend the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 to the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that parliament can better fulfil its duty of oversight in the national interest.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
BILLS - Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
O'Neill supports the bill, saying it is needed to strengthen parliament's oversight of defence and improve accountability, capability and public trust. She argues stronger parliamentary scrutiny is an essential part of keeping Australia's defence institutions fit for purpose.
“I rise today to speak to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility and with a conviction that this measure is essential to strengthen parliament's capacity to scrutinise, to advise and to hold to account the institutions charged with protecting our nation.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill reflects our government's commitment to transparency, accountability and stronger decision-making in defence. I commend the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
11 speakers · 10 support · 1 mixed
“This is the spirit in which the coalition approaches this bill. We are strong supporters of this committee, and we will not oppose this bill's passage through the House, but we will hold the government to the standard it has promised and the standard that Australians expect.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The same is also now emerging as one of the most critical issues in Defence—the volume of Defence expenditure, whether it's set by the coalition or by a Labor government or any other future government of any other stripe. It's important to understand that there is proper oversight to make sure that Defence and the ADF have that accountability about their expenditure, because the spending of billions of dollars, whether it's on submarine programs, long-range missile programs or any other type of technology which naturally has a certain veil of secrecy around it because of intellectual property and our relationships and treaties with other countries, must be done in an environment where there is still oversight and good use of public money.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So there is no question the strategic environment is uncertain, and the coalition does support the principle of this bill to strengthen the parliamentary oversight of defence, provided the government remains both bipartisan and serious in its intent.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a good bill. It's the same bill as last time, and I support it now. It's as simple as that. I'm glad that it's been brought back, I hope it passes and I hope we establish this committee as quickly as possible.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For those reasons, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle, and we will support it when it goes to a vote. At the same time, we will be holding the government to the longstanding conventions that protect Australia's national security. This is incredibly important. Defence demands continuity, competence and, most importantly, bipartisanship, not politics. This committee must follow the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, otherwise known in this place as the PJCIS. It's a committee that I currently sit on.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025—provided it meets all the tick-offs and with the ruler being put over it by the right people—is supported, is good and is to be encouraged. But let's never have those teals or those Greens, in any way, shape or form, on this committee or anywhere near its discussions or deliberations.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support the bill. We need to get behind our Defence Force, but we need to ensure they have the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition believes in peace through strength. We believe in a serious sovereign defence force—properly funded, properly equipped and properly respected. And we believe in a parliament that treats national security not as a game but as a duty. We will support this bill, but we will hold the government to its word, because oversight must strengthen Defence, not weaken it. Bipartisanship must be real, not rhetorical. And this committee must serve one purpose above all others: to keep Australia strong, ready and secure in the times that we are living in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This is an important piece of legislation. It seeks to entrench parliamentary oversight of defence through a new joint committee, a structure that, if implemented with discipline and respect for convention, can strengthen accountability, transparency and public confidence in the way we defend our nation. The coalition supports the principle of this bill, but with an important caveat: the committee this bill creates must remain bipartisan, serious and focused on the national interest.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support this bill because the proper governance and accountability of the defence of Australia is more important today than on any other day since World War II.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For those reasons, I support this bill, and I do not support the amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“Right now we have a defence department that is hollowing itself out to pay for nuclear submarines we'll never get, that is shelling out billions of dollars overseas for projects that won't produce reactors or nuclear submarines, and that means that there's no money left to buy things for the rest of defence. We have a defence department that are building a handful of the most expensive warships on the planet, in Adelaide, and they want to do more of that. We have a defence department that's had a recruitment crisis forever—it turns out people don't much like joining a defence force which is led by such a bunch of bozos and directed by a bunch of noddies in the parties of government. We have a defence force that is designed not to defend Australia but to be part of US deployments around the world and not have an independent sovereign capacity. We have a defence force that is probably a global leader in the failure of procurement and the failure of strategic thinking. You want the same bunch of people that have got us into this mess to now oversight it in secret while they agree with each other in a quiet, smoke filled, private cigar room. This will surprise you: the Greens say no.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 3 support · 2 oppose · 2 mixed
“This bill is the complete opposite. It takes away the rights of the individual and says, 'We people sitting in our ivory towers, in our plush, air conditioned rooms here in Canberra will pass judgement on men that are out there risking their lives for this country.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In closing, I support the creation of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. It is a necessary accountability measure. But who sits on it will determine what it actually does and the scope of its inquiries. So I think the government should guarantee crossbench representation and mandate consultation with Independents, when nominating members, not just recognised political parties. Our defence deserves proper scrutiny and examination. And this isn't a radical ask. There are other committees that specify that the crossbench should be represented on those committees. Putting Independents in the room would certainly be a step in the right direction to ensure genuine engagement—open-minded and fearless engagement—with the issues, and also honour the purpose of committees as an accountability measure in our democracy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This initiative is welcome, but only if the committee is representative of this house and of this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For good reason, the government is creating a parliamentary joint committee on defence, and the stated aim of the bill is to inject greater parliamentary transparency and accountability and oversight of Defence. In fact, I was very interested to hear the member for Fremantle speak on this bill last week. He seems to share my view in relation to the committee, noting it is important that, with respect to matters of national security and the national intelligence community, ordinary parliamentarians who are not members of the executive can have some visibility over these matters. These are worthy aims, and I am very much on board.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Without those amendments, it will be a missed opportunity. Our parliament deserves processes that reflect its composition, and Australians deserve to know that decisions taken in their name are being tested not just rubber stamped. For those reasons, I urge colleagues to amend this bill to include crossbench support, and I indicate that only then will I support the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The fact that, on certain committees, crossbench members are effectively being shut out is profoundly undemocratic and shows that it's the old political parties at work.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The House sent the bill to the Federation Chamber so debate could continue in that parallel forum before reporting back to the House.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The Federation Chamber finished its work on the bill and reported it back to the House for the next formal step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail debate
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 31 to 10.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Detailed Senate review
Senators examined the bill in detail and considered amendments clause by clause.
Senate · Third reading moved
Third reading moved
Senate · Third reading debated
Third reading debated
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 6 of 2025 on 29 October 2025. It raised freedom of expression and privacy issues, including preliminary international human rights legal advice, and sought a ministerial response.
Report 6 of 2025; Ministerial Response Required
Report 6 of 2025Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025 on 29 October 2025. It raised personal rights and liberties and parliamentary scrutiny issues and sought a ministerial response.
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025; Ministerial Response Required
Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2025Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill in Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025 on 26 November 2025. It raised personal rights and liberties and parliamentary scrutiny issues and sought a ministerial response.
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025; Concluded
Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2025Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill in Report 8 of 2025 on 11 December 2025. It raised freedom of expression and privacy issues, including preliminary international human rights legal advice, and sought a ministerial response.
Report 8 of 2025; Concluded
Report 8 of 2025
