Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Xenophon. I just want to be clear about something Senator Xenophon said in expressing his opposition to the Labor amendment. Senator Xenophon indicated that he would not support the Labor Party's amendment on procurement because he had concerns over conflicts with WTO rules. I just want Senator Xenophon to reflect on some of the commentary he made during the election campaign, where he said, as reported in The Australian on 3 June:

… he will be ruthless in using his numbers in the upper house to impose his agenda on the next government, including that Australia withdraw from free trade deals at the heart of Malcolm Turnbull's growth strategy.

In particular, it says:

The South Australian … seized on the fate of Arrium's troubled Whyalla based steelworks to oppose Australia’s entry into a World Trade Organisation procurement agreement …

It gives me no pleasure to point out these huge contradictions in Senator Xenophon's position. It appears that during the election campaign Senator Xenophon indicated that he did not support the World Trade Organization's restrictions imposed on Australia, and that, in fact, he would use his position within the Senate to outline, or at least influence, Australia's stance on the World Trade Organization rules, and yet here his justification for not supporting this agreement is that he has concerns that this amendment would be in conflict with WTO rules. As I said, Senator Xenophon, the Greens and I have worked on a number of issues in the past, so it gives me no pleasure to point out that it appears there is a huge contradiction here. I would be interested in hearing from Senator Xenophon whether he has now changed his position on trade, his position on Australia's commitment to free trade deals and, in particular, our commitment to WTO procurement agreements, or whether he remains committed to what he said during the election campaign, which is that he does have huge concerns. If that is the case then obviously he would continue to support a sensible amendment that ensured that procurement policies were based on the national interest, even when they may have been or they may be in conflict with WTO rules.