Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It seems that the era of reasoned debate in this place and judging issues on their merits did not last very long under the new leadership. The suggestion that we cannot have a reasoned debate about closing loopholes when that is exactly what the minister has just been doing with Labor for the last week is offensive. They want to have a debate about advertising locally, and the minister has just written a letter to the Labor Party, to Senator Penny Wong, saying he is prepared to discuss that in some respects. But when we get up and ask whether we can extend discussion to a couple of others matters all of a sudden there are claims of dog whistling—and that is offensive. The minister should know better; the minister should be bigger than that. We should be able in this place to have a reasoned debate. These are issues that we have been raising for some time. If the minister chooses only Labor as his dancing partner and says he will talk to them and chooses not to talk to other members of this parliament, that is a matter for the minister. But people have been raising these issues for some time.

I am putting forward what I believe are reasonable amendments based on a report from Dr Joanna Howe, senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide Law School, who has gone through this agreement and the amendments and said, 'This would be a sensible amendment to make.' I think we should have the right to come to this place and say, 'Well if you can change (a) and (b) in the agreement, we would like to change (c) as well' and not be accused of being offensive or being racist. That is just minimising the minister's standing and minimising the status of debate in this House. I am a member of an electorate that has a substantial Chinese community, and I have said at press conferences there are good things in this free trade agreement that should be supported, but what we do not like is the fact that when we come here and get told as a parliament take it or leave it—and the way treaties are discussed and negotiated means people like us and people who have genuine concerns never get a chance to input into them—it means we are left to come in and try to fix the holes at the last minute like this. We should be entitled to do so and we should be able to do so with respect. We should be able to do so in a dignified manner.

When anyone in Australia says 'I just want a bit of analysis and I want to be sure that the safeguards are there,' it does not mean they are xenophobic. I and many in my electorate want more trade with our neighbouring partners and are happy to talk about how we do that. People just want to know that there will be protections there at the end of the day. When we come here asking for that we should be entitled to be treated with the respect that our constituents who are for globalisation but want it to be happening on terms that protect important parts of our way of life deserve. We should be entitled to be treated with dignity when we come and raise these matters.

See this speech in context