Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm glad I had the opportunity to speak on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the associated bill after the member for Corio. Prior to question time and our community 90-second statements and the matter of public importance and other matters, the member for Corio gave—and I will give him points!—an erudite speech to this chamber about this bill and why he would be supporting it but putting forward an amendment. The challenge I had was that there was not a constructive discussion about Australia's foreign relations and why we need to make sure we had measures of integrity, so that, if different levels of government who were not responsible for our foreign affairs, as by the Constitution, were doing so consistently with Australia's national interests, there be integrity behind those measures and they be made in Australia's national interest. Instead, what we heard was this rambling speech of interference to give cover to, particularly, the state government of Victoria for subverting this very parliament, this very government and Australia's national interest.

That is the fundamental problem with the opposition's approach. They are more interested in playing the politics of foreign affairs than securing Australia's national interest. And, frankly, any member who aspires to sit on this side of this chamber should be very cautious and very wary of doing so, because, when you see a state government signing agreements with foreign governments which may not be consistent with Australia's national interest, of which they may not have informed the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and which they may not have run past the current government—or previous governments, I might add—you have to question where their priorities lie.

The point of this bill is actually extremely straightforward. It's that state governments—and entities at other levels, like councils, where they have responsibility—where they choose to negotiate with foreign governments, must make sure they run their agreements past the people elected to this place. It's hardly a radical proposition—despite the efforts of the opposition to run interference against such a proposition—because this parliament, under the Constitution that was negotiated between the colonies, the now states, over 100 years ago, recognised that the different levels of government had different responsibilities. The states had responsibility for service provision and scale and for providing for the taxation arrangements to provide support and assistance to the Australian community, because there was an understanding that they had a greater relationship, a greater proximity, to the people who they were elected to serve. This parliament represents the whole of the Commonwealth. Its relationship is around standardisation but also, critically, Australia's relationship to the world. That's why we deal with immigration; that's why we deal with trade; that's why we deal with foreign affairs; that's why we deal with defence. Frankly, that's why we shouldn't be dealing so much with taxation—but we'll leave that topic for another day.

So our job is to negotiate foreign agreements, our job is to negotiate treaties, our job is to negotiate trade agreements, because we don't make decisions in the parochial interests of certain state capitals or states themselves but in the interests of the Commonwealth, of all of us. And when we have states that seek to subvert that process and to put forward their parochial interests against the national interests of our country—whether it is on economics, health, security or the long-term sovereignty of our nation—that should ring alarm bells. So I absolutely applaud the efforts of the foreign minister, the Prime Minister and the government in bringing this bill forward.

Now, this bill does not affect one agreement negotiated between one entity and another entity. It covers all of them. But, clearly—and I say this as someone who has spoken out very strongly against Victoria's negotiation of an agreement under the Belt and Road Initiative with the Chinese Communist Party without informing this parliament and this government—something needed to be done, because we saw a subversion of the authority of this parliament and of the national interest.

We in this parliament face a choice. It's not just about whether we are going to assert our authority—although, obviously, that's very important—and not just about asserting the relevance of the people elected to this chamber, who have not just the authority but the skills, capacity, knowledge, departments and infrastructure to be able to back it up, but simply about making sure that all agreements between different entities and foreign governments are consistent with our national interests. So this is about knowledge and capacity and understanding what is in our best interests as a nation.

Sometimes there are disagreements between the states about such matters, and that's why we're empowered to make these decisions. But it's also important to understand whether the agreements that are being negotiated by different levels of government or entities with foreign governments are also consistent with our agreements—the ones that we're negotiating with those countries. We shouldn't have states negotiating with foreign governments agreements that undermine our trade agreements, our defence pacts or our national security arrangements; or that provide back doors for foreign interference, influence or economic engagement.

Frankly, it astounds me that the members of the opposition somehow think this is problematic. I'm not sure what principle they're harking to. At best, I heard something about 'the politics of the day' in the member for Corio's speech on running interference to defend a state government subverting this parliament. He was making some ridiculous, audacious claim that somehow the issues that prompted the discussion on exactly these types of bills—circumstances which far transcend day-to-day politics and go to global movements and national security, global movements and repositioning of power, contested environments in theatres of tension within our world, the changing nature and relationship of multilateral institutions, the changing nature of relationships between countries—all came down to something to do with a press release or something else. It does raise very serious questions about the judgement of the member for Corio for going down that path rather than looking at how he and the opposition can work together to advance the national interests of the Commonwealth.

The measures are relatively straightforward: to make sure there is an approval regime and a notification regime around those agreements that are being struck. We're not seeking to stop states, universities, institutes, councils and various others from negotiating with foreign governments where there's some advantage. We just kind of want a heads up; we just kind of want to know what it is you're signing up to; we just kind of want to know that you're not undermining our national security, our defence, our health relations, our diplomacy, our economic interests and the very sovereignty of this country and this parliament. I would have thought this bill should be able to pass this parliament easily for that exact reason, because if we are not elected to this chamber to stand up for Australia's national interests, its place in the world, its security, its strength and its sovereignty, then, frankly, I do not know what members would be doing here. That's the basis on which we should support this bill. That's the basis on which members should not be moving trivial, meaningless amendments to try to virtue signal and to undermine or water it down. That's the basis on which the opposition should seriously question where their priorities lie.

We want the strength of this country to be built on a bipartisan consensus around maintaining the integrity of our foreign relations between nations. Yes, sometimes there will be differences of opinion around specific areas of approach. But that this parliament's role is to protect and defend the interests of the Commonwealth, despite the parochialism of the states, should not be something we should be distracted by. And I would hope the members of the opposition could see past that and see the strength and the importance of this bill at this time as part of defending the security, the strength and the sovereignty of our nation.

See this speech in context