Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 44:27 to 49:49
Officials identify specific projects being divested, such as C-27J Spartans and deployable infrastructure, while withholding details on a fourth project due to national security concerns.
Topics: National security, Procurement
Speakers: James Paterson, Hon Murray Watt, Robert Chipman, Unknown Speaker, Interjection
>> Yeah. >> What is the fourth? The fourth uh is related to another capability that at this stage uh we do not wish to disclose the adjustments that have been made because that would compromise our national security in the sense that we would be providing information into the public domain that would be available to our adversaries that we think would give a would be a disadvantage to our national security.
>> Okay. I I'm happy to accept that that is true. I I do not think that you would deliberately withhold information like that unless it was genuinely sensitive to national security. I take you at your word. But why hasn't the government offered a briefing, a classified briefing on that in advance of Senate
>> Senator, that's not a question I can answer.
>> Well, it is utterly routine when there are genuinely sensitive national security issues for a briefing to be offered. If there are questions that can't or shouldn't be asked in this forum, I take that very seriously. We now have a defense committee which can take and receives classified briefings and already has. To my knowledge, that capability change has never been disclosed to that committee. Certainly not any meetings that I've attended. So I mean we I'm in this invidious position now where I can't ask reasonable questions about a change that's been made at how taxpayers money is spent on defense capability. and I'm none the wiser as to why that this is not a reasonable approach to parliamentary scrutiny of significant expenditure of public money in the national interest.
>> There are there are a range of other matters Senator that you have sufficient information to inquire. Of course, if you would like to seek a briefing about a particular matter that is not able to be disclosed here today, that would obviously be considered. Well, I didn't
know that I needed to seek one because I didn't know that it couldn't be disclosed.
>> It is not unusual at Senate Estimates Committees, whether it be this one or other committees, for it to become clear on the day that certain matters can't be discussed. And what happens in that situation is a private briefing where it's appropriate can be arranged afterwards.
>> Minister, I asked questions about this at the last Senate estimates. I sent a letter to the department and the CDF advising that I would have further questions at the this estimates. When it comes to issues of national security, we have a very bipartisan approach to this. I have a very good working relationship with the minister and his office. They provide briefings on a routine basis uh on things that are sensitive and they are always respected and I don't pursue them if they are, you know, genuinely dangerous to national security. But I am in this position where I just have to take you at your word. I have no no information has been provided proactively so we could manage this.
>> Well, as I say, there are um means available to obtain those briefings. Um the officials have said to you what it is possible to discuss here in an open forum. And of course, we welcome any other questions you have about those matters. Um they've made clear that they're not in a position to answer certain other questions. And I'm sure should you request a briefing, a private briefing on something like that, the minister's office would consider that.
But m minister, I now have this problem. There's a secret cut that has not been disclosed that may be to some critical capability. I've got no idea. It may be something inconsequential. I've got no idea.
>> Well, again, again, I reject the assertion that it's a secret cut. Um uh there is a process that you can undertake uh following this hearing to obtain the information that you're seeking and I'm sure that once you receive that briefing you would make decisions about what use you want to make with that information.
>> But I flagged in advance of this hearing at the last Senate estimates my interest in these issues. I then wrote in advance, right? Like I'm being very transparent about what I'm asking about here today. This is not gotcha. is information that the public has a right to know >> that I'm giving you advanced warning. You can prepare your talking points, your defensive arguments that you need to justify the government's decisions, right? I'm not this is not some game. This is reasonable questions to ask in the public interest.
>> I understand that and I've just had another look back at the letter that what it's asked for is information about certain projects and what you've been told today is that there are some of those that can be discussed in an open forum. To me, it sounds like there's one category that can't be discussed in an open forum. There are ways that that can be examined outside of this open forum.
>> Yes. And if the question or notice had have been answered when it was required by September, we would have had plenty of opportunity to request this briefing. Or if this letter had have been replied to prior to
>> estimates, to be fair, this this letter arrived on what was it? Monday.
>> Yes.
>> That's more notice than you normally get. Normally there's no notice at all. I just turn up and ask the questions. But I'm giving you advanced notice of my questions. Right. I think that shows
>> But you asking But you asking in a letter uh for information to be provided in an open hearing doesn't automatically mean that the officials can provide that information in an open hearing.
>> Exactly. Minister,
>> there are other ways to provide that information and I'd encourage you to use those other ways.
>> It hasn't been. That's my point. Look, this is not productive to continue this discussion in perpetuity, but I just think this is a very poor approach to parliamentary scrutiny. The these are reasonable questions. I would handle it sensitively if given the opportunity to do so, but you put me in a difficult position. Um, let's just briefly explore those new capabilities. I'm particularly interested. We've talked about Spartan a little bit. We may get back to that if we have time today, but I'm interested