Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 2:10:56 to 2:34:46
Officials explain the process for declassifying defense project information, balancing national security risks and commercial disadvantage against the public's right to information.
Topics: Integrity, National security, Procurement
Speakers: James Paterson, Robert Chipman, Meghan Quinn, Unknown Speaker, Raff Ciccone, Hon Murray Watt
>> So, the IIP was released in April. We had a budget in May. We had budget estimates after that, of which I asked questions about this. We're now at the second round of budget estimates after that, which I'm asking questions. And still questions about an IP that's been public for more than 6 months can't be answered in this forum. Senator, >> do I have to wait for the third round of estimates after an IIP has been released to be able to ask questions? That'll be next year. That'll be February next year that were first asked in April.
>> So, Senator, it has always been the case in the integrated investment program, there are elements of that program that are a higher classification than can be discussed in an estimates forum. And there's so so it has always been the case that there are particular capabilities uh and particular funding attached to particular capabilities uh that we do not talk about in uh in open forums for a range of reasons. Some of it's to do with negotiations with industry partners. Some of it's to do with the commerciality arrangements and some of it's to do with the technology and and deterrence effects.
>> Why don't you tell me that
always the case that of the many hundreds of projects in the IIP there is a subset uh that fall into that camp. Uh you have talked about the ones that have rep prioritized but there are other ones that um have been prioritized that we similarly do not provide uh the detailed information in such a forum. So it's not that we are providing less information on the rep prioritized than the prioritized ones. We apply the same obligations that we have under the official secrets act to protect the integrity of uh our programs.
>> But you are only telling me now for the first time in October for an IIP that was released in April that you can't provide these answers when I asked them at the previous round of estimates months ago when they have been on notice in Quans for months and late and only returned late last night and early this morning. It really feels to me like the ability of this committee to do its job in scrutinizing public expenditure is being frustrated.
>> That is not our intent, Senator.
>> Well, that's the effect. Whether it's your intent or not, I can't speak to that. That's the effect, right? That the Senate is being impeded in its duty to ask these questions because you haven't been upfront and honest and direct about this when they first asked months and months and months ago.
>> I I don't think that's a fair characterization of what the officials have done in answering questions. They have you have asked questions. They have responded with information that can be provided and identified uh answers that cannot be provided in this forum and we've talked about the avenues that those answers can be pursued.
>> Okay. So, let's talk about the ones that the information that has been provided. We now have half a dozen decisions from the IIP that are public. Why weren't they just released in April? The ones that could always have been public, why weren't they released in April? Senator,
it's been the process when we came in April that all of the decisions on the list for delays, devestments, and descopes were classified secret osteo cabinet. We have been through a process of recalibrating some of those and and that these are decisions that are taken through cooperation across the department and with our uh ministers to make sure that we've got our assessments of what can be discussed publicly accurate. And then we have tried to make as much information as possible available to you in response to your questions. >> So there are still some capability issues where there are issues around national security where we do not feel comfortable talking about those in an open forum but we have tried to the maximum extent possible to respond to your questions.
>> Doesn't really feel like that I got to say. So um you're telling me that these the ones you have now disclosed were previously classified and you have declassified them.
>> That's correct.
>> When was that decision making? When did that happen?
>> Well, we have been through a process over the last months of making sure that the information that we are putting out into the public domain now is able to be declassified.
>> Right. So but take me through that process. What is the body that makes that decision that it can be declassified? When were the meetings held? Who signed off on it? Explain to
me how that happened. Well, when we when we go through a process of classifying information, it's normally work that is done by a capability operator or sponsor and guided by the defense security principles framework and and we look at the operating environment. We look at the the the kind of risk that we would be exposed to if an adversary understood our capabilities or understood our vulnerabilities. We understand seek to understand our obligations to international relations with our partners and allies. All of those things go to decisions about classifications. And there are also times when we choose when we seek to to not have a public discussion when the Commonwealth would be disadvantaged commercially if the vendors that we are talking about understood what we were estimating.
>> Sure. But that's not classification. That's very as you know and as we've discussed before the Senate does not accept commercial incompetence as being a legitimate reason to withhold information. you have to make. And
>> but it would be reasonable, Senator, and I sure I'm sure you would agree that the Australian public would also be frustrated to learn that that we were squandering the position, the negotiating position of the Commonwealth by making public information about decisions that we're seeking to take.
>> Absolutely. But let's have that as a like clear and transparent discussion. And most senators, myself certainly, uh would not press for information if I thought it was going to be commercially harmful to the Commonwealth. But I don't know which is which. Right. I just this just being used as a catch-all excuse to not give information out.
>> I I I don't agree with that framework. We we are going through a deliberate process to maximize how much information we can put into the public domain and these are the considerations.
>> I I would say that uh this is a very drawn out process and very little information is being released to the public to the people who actually pay for this and who elect us to ask questions about it on their behalf. Let's move on to the $2.5 billion of
savings. I'm just mindful that we're coming to our break. Um
>> okay, if you
>> got a 20 minute block, but I'm happy to come back to you after the break if that will work for you. I'm you also got your time constraints as well too, but um >> why don't we break now for morning tea. We'll come back here at 20 cuz we've just got to construct a quick meeting as well, the committee. Um so 20 past, Hello everyone.