Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QH130 and the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QT131. We've made clear from the outset that the opposition supports the objectives of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and that it is very preferable that Australia speaks with one voice in respect of foreign and strategic policy, that we speak with one voice internationally. We've also made clear, though, that we believe this bill has been hastily brought to the parliament, is sloppy as a result and is fundamentally here because back in August the Prime Minister put his political interest above the national interest in terms of getting the detail of this bill right. It was announced in haste before it was ready and before many of the entities that relate to this bill were consulted.

As a consequence and as was highlighted by the Senate committee inquiry in our second reading amendment, the bill is flawed. We still believe that the time is now for the Morrison government to give much further consideration to this bill before it passes this parliament, and we invite the government to work with us in a bipartisan way to advance our shared national interest. If the government refuses to do this, though, the opposition will seek to amend this bill, focusing on the flaws which have been identified through the Senate committee process. The amendment before the House, though, recognises the necessity of this legislation being reviewed three years after it commences. Whilst the opposition would prefer that a review occur sooner, we welcome the Morrison government's recognition that such a review is an essential element of the legislation. Accordingly, we will support the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QH130.

In respect of the amendments circulated on sheet QT131, this provides clarity around the definition of institutional autonomy as it relates to a university. In the bill, as it was written a first time, the definition of institutional autonomy was left to the minister to determine under the rules. This was not an acceptable situation for such a significant concept. Indeed, the Law Council of Australia said, 'Given the critical nature of this definition, the Law Council's position is that the primary legislation should clearly provide such criteria.' Professor George Williams concurred with this assessment, stating that it is 'somewhat inexplicable that this term of significance has not been defined in the legislation'.

I note that the reliance in the bill on rules that have not yet been seen by anyone was the subject of further adverse reflection by the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. Even the majority report of the Senate committee, including government senators, recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consult with stakeholders on the proposed rules and that the rules be released publicly before the consideration of the bills by the parliament. So, whilst the opposition has further concerns about the operation of the bill in respect of the universities, we do accept that this specific amendment does improve the bill as it stands. Therefore, the opposition will support the government amendment that has been circulated on sheet QT131. These are small measures that do improve the bill, but, fundamentally, this bill needs a lot more improvement. It's not ready to be brought before this parliament, and we will seek to amend this bill further in the other place, if the government doesn't take up the invitation that we're giving to actually take some time to work through this bill in detail and advance a common position in the national interest.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

See this speech in context