Division Description Changes — Bills — Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee — 2nd Dec 2020

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-12-02#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-12-30 11:37:30	Title Description The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-02.102.5) that will include a requirement for the Minister to prepare an annual report in the bill. The amendment was introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor). ### Amendment text > (1) Page 66 (after line 19), after Division 4, insert: > > Division 4A—Annual report > > 53A Annual report > >> (1) The Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's decision-making powers under this Act during the year. >> >> (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following: >> >>> (a) statistical information about the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year, including the total number of decisions, the total number of decisions in each class of decision, and the outcomes of the decisions; >>> >>> (b) a summary of the details of each of the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year; >>> >>> (c) an outline of the engagement that has occurred during the year with entities covered by the Act to articulate and explain to those entities Australia's foreign policy and how they should engage with foreign entities in Australia's national interest. >> >> (3) A copy of the report must be given to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report that is not tabled in a House of the Parliament. >> >> (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the year to which the report relates. >> >> (5) However, before tabling the report the Minister may make such redactions to the report as the Minister considers necessary in order to avoid prejudice to security, the defence of Australia, Australia's relations with other countries, law enforcement operations or the privacy of individuals. ### What do these bills do? According to the bill homepage, the [Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6596) was: > Introduced with the [Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6595), the bill establishes a legislative scheme for Commonwealth engagement with arrangements between State or Territory governments and foreign governments, and their associated entities.
senate vote 2020-12-02#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-12-30 11:37:07	Title Bills — Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and another bill - in Committee - Annual report Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>~~ ~~<p>The committee is considering Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and a related bill. The question is that the bill stand as printed.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-02.102.5) that will include a requirement for the Minister to prepare an annual report in the bill. The amendment was introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor). ### Amendment text > (1) Page 66 (after line 19), after Division 4, insert: > > Division 4A—Annual report > > 53A Annual report > >> (1) The Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's decision-making powers under this Act during the year. >> *>> (2) Without limiting subsec*tion (1), the report must include the following: >> >>> (a) statistical information about the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year, including the total number of decisions, the total number of decisions in each class of decision, and the outcomes of the decisions; >>> >>> (b) a summary of the details of each of the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year; >>> *>>> (c) an outline of the enga*gement that has occurred during the year with entities covered by the Act to articulate and explain to those entities Australia's foreign policy and how they should engage with foreign entities in Australia's national interest. >> >> (3) A copy of the report must be given to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report that is not tabled in a House of the Parliament. >> *>> (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after** the end of the year to which the report relates.* >> >> (5) However, before tabling the report the Minister may make such redactions to the report as the Minister considers necessary in order to avoid prejudice to security, the defence of Australia, Australia's relations with other countries, law enforcement operations or the privacy of individuals. ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ <p>Minister, before we were rudely interrupted by the adjournment debate last night, I was trying to ask you a question about decision reasoning and the publishing of decisions. You'll, of course, be aware that often decisions are published in respect of the AAT and the courts so that people in the community can understand what the rules are, how the law works and the operation of the bill in this instance. If there are never any reasons made available for people to look at to understand why something was rejected, how is it that the government will inform the public and entities that are subject to this bill of, basically, the mood of the government and how to avoid getting into a situation where an agreement is entered into that ultimately gets overturned or where they start to walk down a path for an agreement which then later has the minister intervening?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p>~~ <p>Senator Patrick, I think we were discussing this yesterday. Obviously, in relation to the processes which will exist under the bill, the engagement of the task force with entities, state and territory governments, local governments and universities will be very much part of that process. As I alluded to yesterday—and I haven't quite put my hand on the note that I was using yesterday—it's similar to the provisions under the FIRB, which are also sensitive decisions and are provisions which have a similar application as these. We will be engaging comprehensively with those stakeholders, with those entities, on these matters. I think once the stocktake process is underway, and we have the chance to go through the arrangements and work with entities about the nature of those arrangements, I do think this will fall into a sort of rhythm, if you like, in terms of awareness and understanding of what the implications are in relation to foreign policy and foreign relations.</p> <p>One thing I would like to absolutely assure the chamber of is that this is in no way intended to be a confrontational engagement or a confrontational relationship between the Commonwealth government and state and territory and local governments and universities under this bill. This is meant to be and will be, I'm absolutely confident, a constructive set of relationships that will assist us all in coming to a collaborative approach on foreign policy and reflecting the Commonwealth's particular role in that regard.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ <p>I want to follow up in respect of the discussion we were having yesterday about the sensitivity of these reasons, and I do understand the minister's concerns. In relation to a decision that related to a state government—and I asked this question in ignorance of how Commonwealth-state relations work at a ministerial level—does the dialogue between states and the Commonwealth permit the disclosure of those perhaps sensitive reasons to the states so that they are assisted as they may seek to establish future agreements with overseas entities?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p>~~ <p>As part of the dialogue, that's an important part of the approach. The decisions themselves will obviously be contained in the public register as part of this process. That's formalised. That will provide a picture of arrangements that are inconsistent with foreign policy and foreign relations, and there will be a significant amount of consultation during the process between the entities and the Commonwealth government in the form of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade task force.</p> <p>There are also the matters in section 51, which I alluded to yesterday, which are the matters that the minister is required to take into account. It gives some quite explicit guidance to the states and territories in relation to these matters and to the Commonwealth, frankly, in terms of what has to be taken into account by the minister.</p> <p>On sensitivity, obviously decisions will be based on a range of inputs—the foreign minister's input—as is explicitly referred to in the bill, but also on classified issues, cabinet-in-confidence issues and a range of others. I do think, for the reasons that I set out yesterday and for the reasons that apply in the context of the FIRB similarly, that the way the bill has cast this, in terms of not providing reasons, is one that the government believes is appropriate.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ <p>I have a question in relation to delegations of decisions under the bill. Can you clarify whether the decisions are made exclusively by the minister or whether they are delegated, and, if they are to be delegated, to what level, perhaps matching those with the nature of the decisions that might be made?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p>~~ ~~<p>There is a capacity to delegate, but the responsibility begins and ends with the minister.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ <p>I'm just trying to get an understanding of how low down the seniority chain some of these decisions may be delegated. What is the intention of the government? In some sense, that goes to the concerns Senator Wong expressed yesterday: you may have junior officials or even ELs making decisions. It would be informative to the chamber if you could perhaps be a little bit more specific.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p>~~ <p>Section 56 of the bill goes to the question of delegation. The delegations are limited to the secretary of the department or a person who holds or performs the duties of an SES in the department, but the minister is not able to delegate any of the minister's powers or functions under the parts of the bill which deal with negotiating and entering core foreign relations; or, in relation to part 4, a core foreign arrangement; or section 54, which is part of the legislation which deals with making the rules. A delegate, in exercising any powers or performing any functions under the delegations, must comply with any directions of the minister. That's section 56 of the legislation, which is very clear about the delegations.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p>~~ <p>I rise to put on the public record my concerns about not only the substance of this but this minister's failure to engage with us constructively. We are of the view that it's a pretty reasonable proposition when a minister is exercising this level of power—and it is a substantial power. Let's recall that this could enable whoever is there, perhaps this minister or possibly Peter Dutton—goodness me, imagine the power in his hands!—to just choose to exercise the power to stop Premier McGowan's agreements with some international entity. Obviously the BRI is in their sights—the Victorian one. There are some agreements Steven Marshall has with sister city arrangements. Whoever is in that seat, whether it's Marise Payne or Peter Dutton, could do so without giving the government notice and could make a decision without even writing down the reason for it. That's the kind of authoritarian power she's defending.</p> <p>And I know Senator Payne doesn't like to pick up the phone, but there's an incredible amount of passivity associated with dealing with this legislation. Every day of consultation by this minister, which had been non-existent, was after the bill had been announced. I mean, really: that's not consultation. I think there's some suggestion that it's a privileged position to actually talk to people, but I just think it's good legislating. If you're going to introduce a power that gives you the discretion to veto agreements across subnational entities and universities, what's the problem with actually talking to people in order to work through how that might best work? That's called good government. But no, she didn't pick up the phone and didn't meet with them. We saw that on Qatar, too. Even with the engagement on foreign policy and the exchange with Senator Rice, I think it was, about why foreign policy isn't defined—and I actually understand the argument there—the minister's department has admitted that engagement with the affected entities on government foreign policy is ad hoc.</p> <p>I indicated broad support for this legislation on the day it was announced, subject to constitutional remit and subject to looking at the detail. We hear from the minister's office and we want to be bipartisan. We send them our amendments—radio silence; not even the courtesy of a call. On this legislation, at this time, I would have thought they'd want some bipartisanship. During this time that we're going through—we saw what happened yesterday and the day before; we understand what Australia is dealing with—why not try to land an agreement? But no: just silence, and she just comes down here and airily dismisses it. Frankly, I think it's pretty poor form, and I'm putting that on the public record. It's deeply disappointing.</p> <p>Nothing the minister has said on these issues around the accountability of the executive for this decision makes sense. Her arguments to Senator Patrick yesterday and today really don't hold up. I again put on record our willingness to consider an alternative proposition to deal with some of the issues the minister has raised, even though I believe that those issues are dealt with in the amendments we've proposed. But, again: radio silence. I can't work out whether it's just passivity or, frankly, arrogance—because I do think it's a pretty arrogant position to say the federal government is not accountable for the decisions it makes. So, I hope the Western Australians will have a think—whichever minister is there, whether it be Peter Dutton or someone like that—about which of Mark McGowan's propositions might be vetoed without reasonable notice.</p> <p>I was hopeful we could actually have a sensible bipartisan discussion on this bill, but it appears this minister is unwilling or uninterested in doing so, and I express my disappointment, particularly at this time. I was going to move to other topics, but perhaps the Greens or Senator Patrick have further issues before I do so.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p>~~ <p>I want to conclude some of this discussion about the concerns we have about the lack of a collaborative approach and the lack of accountability. Minister, you've talked about how this isn't meant to be adversarial, that it's collaborative—that it's about people working together. But that hasn't been the experience so far in terms of consultation and working with a whole range of stakeholders before this legislation was introduced. I want to put on the record that Australia's interests are, obviously, incredibly important and the issue of foreign interference is incredibly important. I think everybody around this chamber recognises the measures to ensure that there isn't foreign interference—that is, that we are not entering into relationships that are not in our interests or not in the interests of human rights or not in the interests of good order in the world. It's important that we do have legislation that enables us to deal with those.</p> <p>I also agree with the premise of the legislation. I think that it's important that there is a collaborative and cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth in terms of our international relations. A situation like the Victorian government deciding that it was going to go and enter into the Belt and Road Initiative with China without engaging the Commonwealth is not a situation that is in the good interests of Australia. That's playing off different parts of the Commonwealth and different states against each other. That collaborative approach is clearly essential, but we can see that that collaborative approach, and that reporting back and accountability, which goes hand in hand with that collaborative approach—is not baked into this bill. Minister, you talk about the fact that they can happen but that doesn't mean that they will happen. Unless you actually have them there in the legislation to ensure they will happen, it is very possible that—maybe not under you as minister, Minister Payne, but under future ministers—these things won't happen. The powers that are vested in the foreign minister to take a complete over-the-top, non-collaborative approach are there in the bill. They are there. They are enabled.</p> <p>Going to the collaborative approach, we know there was no consultation with the states and territories before this legislation was introduced. What discussions have been had with all of the states and territories since the introduction of the bill? We know that not all of the states and territories took the opportunity to put in submissions to the inquiry and those that did were largely not supportive of the bill. Minister, could you please go through the negotiations and the discussions that you have had with all of the states and territories since the legislation was introduced?</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2020-12-02#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-12-30 11:37:30

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-02.102.5) that will include a requirement for the Minister to prepare an annual report in the bill. The amendment was introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor).
### Amendment text
> *(1) Page 66 (after line 19), after Division 4, insert:*
>
> *Division 4A—Annual report*
>
> *53A Annual report*
>
>> *(1) The Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's decision-making powers under this Act during the year.*
>>
>> *(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following:*
>>
>>> *(a) statistical information about the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year, including the total number of decisions, the total number of decisions in each class of decision, and the outcomes of the decisions;*
>>>
>>> *(b) a summary of the details of each of the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year;*
>>>
>>> *(c) an outline of the engagement that has occurred during the year with entities covered by the Act to articulate and explain to those entities Australia's foreign policy and how they should engage with foreign entities in Australia's national interest.*
>>
>> *(3) A copy of the report must be given to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report that is not tabled in a House of the Parliament.*
>>
>> *(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the year to which the report relates.*
>>
>> *(5) However, before tabling the report the Minister may make such redactions to the report as the Minister considers necessary in order to avoid prejudice to security, the defence of Australia, Australia's relations with other countries, law enforcement operations or the privacy of individuals.*
### What do these bills do?
According to the bill homepage, the [Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6596) was:
> *Introduced with the [Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6595), the bill establishes a legislative scheme for Commonwealth engagement with arrangements between State or Territory governments and foreign governments, and their associated entities.*

senate vote 2020-12-02#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-12-30 11:37:07

Title

Bills — Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and another bill - in Committee - Annual report

Description

~~Sue Lines~~
~~The committee is considering Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and a related bill. The question is that the bill stand as printed.~~
The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-02.102.5) that will include a requirement for the Minister to prepare an annual report in the bill. The amendment was introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor).
### Amendment text
> *(1) Page 66 (after line 19), after Division 4, insert:*
>
> *Division 4A—Annual report*
>
> *53A Annual report*
>
>> *(1) The Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's decision-making powers under this Act during the year.*
>>
>> *(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following:*
>>
>>> *(a) statistical information about the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year, including the total number of decisions, the total number of decisions in each class of decision, and the outcomes of the decisions;*
>>>
>>> *(b) a summary of the details of each of the decisions made by the Minister under the Act during the year;*
>>>
>>> *(c) an outline of the engagement that has occurred during the year with entities covered by the Act to articulate and explain to those entities Australia's foreign policy and how they should engage with foreign entities in Australia's national interest.*
>>
>> *(3) A copy of the report must be given to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, but it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to treat as secret any part of the report that is not tabled in a House of the Parliament.*
>>
>> *(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the year to which the report relates.*
>>
>> *(5) However, before tabling the report the Minister may make such redactions to the report as the Minister considers necessary in order to avoid prejudice to security, the defence of Australia, Australia's relations with other countries, law enforcement operations or the privacy of individuals.*
~~Rex Patrick~~
Minister, before we were rudely interrupted by the adjournment debate last night, I was trying to ask you a question about decision reasoning and the publishing of decisions. You'll, of course, be aware that often decisions are published in respect of the AAT and the courts so that people in the community can understand what the rules are, how the law works and the operation of the bill in this instance. If there are never any reasons made available for people to look at to understand why something was rejected, how is it that the government will inform the public and entities that are subject to this bill of, basically, the mood of the government and how to avoid getting into a situation where an agreement is entered into that ultimately gets overturned or where they start to walk down a path for an agreement which then later has the minister intervening?
~~Marise Payne~~
Senator Patrick, I think we were discussing this yesterday. Obviously, in relation to the processes which will exist under the bill, the engagement of the task force with entities, state and territory governments, local governments and universities will be very much part of that process. As I alluded to yesterday—and I haven't quite put my hand on the note that I was using yesterday—it's similar to the provisions under the FIRB, which are also sensitive decisions and are provisions which have a similar application as these. We will be engaging comprehensively with those stakeholders, with those entities, on these matters. I think once the stocktake process is underway, and we have the chance to go through the arrangements and work with entities about the nature of those arrangements, I do think this will fall into a sort of rhythm, if you like, in terms of awareness and understanding of what the implications are in relation to foreign policy and foreign relations.
One thing I would like to absolutely assure the chamber of is that this is in no way intended to be a confrontational engagement or a confrontational relationship between the Commonwealth government and state and territory and local governments and universities under this bill. This is meant to be and will be, I'm absolutely confident, a constructive set of relationships that will assist us all in coming to a collaborative approach on foreign policy and reflecting the Commonwealth's particular role in that regard.
~~Rex Patrick~~
I want to follow up in respect of the discussion we were having yesterday about the sensitivity of these reasons, and I do understand the minister's concerns. In relation to a decision that related to a state government—and I asked this question in ignorance of how Commonwealth-state relations work at a ministerial level—does the dialogue between states and the Commonwealth permit the disclosure of those perhaps sensitive reasons to the states so that they are assisted as they may seek to establish future agreements with overseas entities?
~~Marise Payne~~
As part of the dialogue, that's an important part of the approach. The decisions themselves will obviously be contained in the public register as part of this process. That's formalised. That will provide a picture of arrangements that are inconsistent with foreign policy and foreign relations, and there will be a significant amount of consultation during the process between the entities and the Commonwealth government in the form of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade task force.
There are also the matters in section 51, which I alluded to yesterday, which are the matters that the minister is required to take into account. It gives some quite explicit guidance to the states and territories in relation to these matters and to the Commonwealth, frankly, in terms of what has to be taken into account by the minister.
On sensitivity, obviously decisions will be based on a range of inputs—the foreign minister's input—as is explicitly referred to in the bill, but also on classified issues, cabinet-in-confidence issues and a range of others. I do think, for the reasons that I set out yesterday and for the reasons that apply in the context of the FIRB similarly, that the way the bill has cast this, in terms of not providing reasons, is one that the government believes is appropriate.
~~Rex Patrick~~
I have a question in relation to delegations of decisions under the bill. Can you clarify whether the decisions are made exclusively by the minister or whether they are delegated, and, if they are to be delegated, to what level, perhaps matching those with the nature of the decisions that might be made?
~~Marise Payne~~
~~There is a capacity to delegate, but the responsibility begins and ends with the minister.~~
~~Rex Patrick~~
I'm just trying to get an understanding of how low down the seniority chain some of these decisions may be delegated. What is the intention of the government? In some sense, that goes to the concerns Senator Wong expressed yesterday: you may have junior officials or even ELs making decisions. It would be informative to the chamber if you could perhaps be a little bit more specific.
~~Marise Payne~~
Section 56 of the bill goes to the question of delegation. The delegations are limited to the secretary of the department or a person who holds or performs the duties of an SES in the department, but the minister is not able to delegate any of the minister's powers or functions under the parts of the bill which deal with negotiating and entering core foreign relations; or, in relation to part 4, a core foreign arrangement; or section 54, which is part of the legislation which deals with making the rules. A delegate, in exercising any powers or performing any functions under the delegations, must comply with any directions of the minister. That's section 56 of the legislation, which is very clear about the delegations.
~~Penny Wong~~
I rise to put on the public record my concerns about not only the substance of this but this minister's failure to engage with us constructively. We are of the view that it's a pretty reasonable proposition when a minister is exercising this level of power—and it is a substantial power. Let's recall that this could enable whoever is there, perhaps this minister or possibly Peter Dutton—goodness me, imagine the power in his hands!—to just choose to exercise the power to stop Premier McGowan's agreements with some international entity. Obviously the BRI is in their sights—the Victorian one. There are some agreements Steven Marshall has with sister city arrangements. Whoever is in that seat, whether it's Marise Payne or Peter Dutton, could do so without giving the government notice and could make a decision without even writing down the reason for it. That's the kind of authoritarian power she's defending.
And I know Senator Payne doesn't like to pick up the phone, but there's an incredible amount of passivity associated with dealing with this legislation. Every day of consultation by this minister, which had been non-existent, was after the bill had been announced. I mean, really: that's not consultation. I think there's some suggestion that it's a privileged position to actually talk to people, but I just think it's good legislating. If you're going to introduce a power that gives you the discretion to veto agreements across subnational entities and universities, what's the problem with actually talking to people in order to work through how that might best work? That's called good government. But no, she didn't pick up the phone and didn't meet with them. We saw that on Qatar, too. Even with the engagement on foreign policy and the exchange with Senator Rice, I think it was, about why foreign policy isn't defined—and I actually understand the argument there—the minister's department has admitted that engagement with the affected entities on government foreign policy is ad hoc.
I indicated broad support for this legislation on the day it was announced, subject to constitutional remit and subject to looking at the detail. We hear from the minister's office and we want to be bipartisan. We send them our amendments—radio silence; not even the courtesy of a call. On this legislation, at this time, I would have thought they'd want some bipartisanship. During this time that we're going through—we saw what happened yesterday and the day before; we understand what Australia is dealing with—why not try to land an agreement? But no: just silence, and she just comes down here and airily dismisses it. Frankly, I think it's pretty poor form, and I'm putting that on the public record. It's deeply disappointing.
Nothing the minister has said on these issues around the accountability of the executive for this decision makes sense. Her arguments to Senator Patrick yesterday and today really don't hold up. I again put on record our willingness to consider an alternative proposition to deal with some of the issues the minister has raised, even though I believe that those issues are dealt with in the amendments we've proposed. But, again: radio silence. I can't work out whether it's just passivity or, frankly, arrogance—because I do think it's a pretty arrogant position to say the federal government is not accountable for the decisions it makes. So, I hope the Western Australians will have a think—whichever minister is there, whether it be Peter Dutton or someone like that—about which of Mark McGowan's propositions might be vetoed without reasonable notice.
I was hopeful we could actually have a sensible bipartisan discussion on this bill, but it appears this minister is unwilling or uninterested in doing so, and I express my disappointment, particularly at this time. I was going to move to other topics, but perhaps the Greens or Senator Patrick have further issues before I do so.
~~Janet Rice~~
I want to conclude some of this discussion about the concerns we have about the lack of a collaborative approach and the lack of accountability. Minister, you've talked about how this isn't meant to be adversarial, that it's collaborative—that it's about people working together. But that hasn't been the experience so far in terms of consultation and working with a whole range of stakeholders before this legislation was introduced. I want to put on the record that Australia's interests are, obviously, incredibly important and the issue of foreign interference is incredibly important. I think everybody around this chamber recognises the measures to ensure that there isn't foreign interference—that is, that we are not entering into relationships that are not in our interests or not in the interests of human rights or not in the interests of good order in the world. It's important that we do have legislation that enables us to deal with those.
I also agree with the premise of the legislation. I think that it's important that there is a collaborative and cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth in terms of our international relations. A situation like the Victorian government deciding that it was going to go and enter into the Belt and Road Initiative with China without engaging the Commonwealth is not a situation that is in the good interests of Australia. That's playing off different parts of the Commonwealth and different states against each other. That collaborative approach is clearly essential, but we can see that that collaborative approach, and that reporting back and accountability, which goes hand in hand with that collaborative approach—is not baked into this bill. Minister, you talk about the fact that they can happen but that doesn't mean that they will happen. Unless you actually have them there in the legislation to ensure they will happen, it is very possible that—maybe not under you as minister, Minister Payne, but under future ministers—these things won't happen. The powers that are vested in the foreign minister to take a complete over-the-top, non-collaborative approach are there in the bill. They are there. They are enabled.
Going to the collaborative approach, we know there was no consultation with the states and territories before this legislation was introduced. What discussions have been had with all of the states and territories since the introduction of the bill? We know that not all of the states and territories took the opportunity to put in submissions to the inquiry and those that did were largely not supportive of the bill. Minister, could you please go through the negotiations and the discussions that you have had with all of the states and territories since the legislation was introduced?
~~Long debate text truncated.~~