Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the related bill. This is a major piece of legislation that the government has put forward, with significant long-term implications. The government says these bills are about foreign policy, and they are, but they're also about the issue of addressing foreign interference in Australia. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has framed it in that way by saying that where any foreign government seeks to undermine the sovereignty of Australia's foreign policy by seeking to do deals with subnational governments then Australia needs to protect itself.

Let's be very clear: we agree that, where any interference by foreign governments occurs, it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. We would welcome the opportunity to have a serious, thoughtful debate about foreign interference and how to balance actions taken to protect people in governments from foreign interference, protecting legitimate activity and engagement and protecting people's civil and human rights, including by introducing a charter of rights side by side with such legislation. We didn't have this conversation when the government introduced its foreign interference laws two years ago, and we aren't having it now.

My colleague Senator McKim, two years ago, said that that legislation was shoddily drafted and too broad in scope and needed amendments to ensure it was properly targeting foreign interference in our political system, rather than allowing a raft of actions that impacted on freedom of speech and association, catching legitimate dissent in their net. Again today we see hastily drafted, problematic legislation. What's more, there's a distinct lack of clarity about how the legislation before us today intersects and interacts with the 2018 foreign interference legislation.

It's also worth pointing out how so much of this debate about foreign interference and foreign policy actually becomes shorthand for a debate about foreign interference by the Chinese government. We think any debate about foreign interference should be a much broader conversation that recognises the risks to Australia by being overly aligned with US foreign policy, and the risk to our sovereignty by having US bases like Pine Gap on our soil, where some of the information and intelligence that flows through is for US eyes only. That debate should include the risks to our soldiers when they're sent in to fight in American wars on foreign soil and the risks to the rights of Australian citizens like Julian Assange, who, upon uncovering evidence about US war crimes, is persecuted, with ongoing attempts to extradite him to the US, where he could face charges that could result in decades in prison.

The Greens come to this discussion on foreign policy and foreign interference from a perspective that puts human rights first. That critically includes being able to have a domestic debate where people are free to raise human rights concerns and act to apply pressure on other countries without being subject to threats and intimidation. It's important that we speak out loudly and clearly and take action about human rights abuses by the Chinese government against the Uighurs in Xinjiang or East Turkestan in Tibet, and that we speak out about the attack on democracy in Hong Kong and the Chinese government's ongoing persecution of others, including Falun Gong practitioners.

It's also important that we continue to advocate for meaningful action on human rights abuses, wherever they occur—that is, not just in China but in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, African nations, the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam, India, Myanmar and in the US. It's important that we here in Australia voice our support for the Black Lives Matter movement in America and elsewhere internationally. It's also important that we support a global environment that brings pressure to bear on us for our human rights abuses, with over 400 black deaths in custody since the royal commission and our own indefinite incarceration of asylum seekers. It's important that we have a domestic debate where we're able to do that free of foreign interference, and that we withstand other nations' response to that criticism and stay true to our principles of not just accepting that our major trading partners have appalling human rights records.

We must not just turn away and turn a blind eye, as has been the habit of previous governments, and still is. Yes, we have become more vocal about China, but where is the outcry about what's going on in India, in Vietnam, in the Philippines, in Saudi Arabia and in Palestine? It seems it's convenient for us to speak out about China in the current climate, but for other countries who are our allies and our major trading partners, different standards are applied.

It is also important that, when we are speaking out about the actions of foreign governments, we do it in a way that doesn't leave the peoples who originally are from these countries subject to stigma here in Australia. At the same time as we are outspoken against the actions of the Chinese government, we must be aware of the potential for this to have an impact on Australians of Asian origin and we must support them against any racist attacks.

I want to look more broadly now at what needs to occur if we are to seriously tackle foreign interference, and that's to talk about money, to follow the money—recognising, acknowledging and addressing the risks of foreign interference through corporate influence. For a very long time we Greens have been sounding the alarm about the influence of corporations, and in particular corporate donations, on Australia's political system. We want to see systematic change to address that. We welcome the fact that foreign donations above $1,000 to political parties are now outlawed, but this doesn't rule out money politics from foreign players—far from it. We have companies registered in Australia that can take up the slack and still serve the political interests of their foreign owners. So whether it's domestic or foreign interference on our politics and corporations, and the incredibly powerful and wealthy people behind them, there's one straightforward way of stopping them in their tracks and that's to get this money out of politics. Banning large corporate donations full stop would put an end to their influence on politicians and politics; their pushing of policies, and planet-destroying and people-exploiting developments that are not in the interests of ordinary Australians or people around the world. They are anti-democratic and destructive of our future.

My colleague Senator Waters has done incredible work advocating for electoral donations reform. Tightening our electoral donations laws would be a significant step forward. Crucially, I also want to recognise the work that Senator Waters and all of our MPs have done in advocating for a federal ICAC. We're glad that the ALP has followed us on that charge. We think it's crucial. A watchdog with real teeth can make a meaningful difference and we need to see that. It would lessen foreign influence, but it would also address corruption more broadly. We've seen sports rorts, Angus Taylor's 'watergate' scandal, the many other Taylor scandals and too many other scandals to list.

That corruption by the Liberal Party is having a corrosive impact on our democracy. It's reflected in data released today by Griffith University and Transparency International. Their report shows Australians increasingly view corruption as either a very big or a quite big problem, rising from 61 per cent in 2018 to 66 per cent. The proportion of those who believe the federal government is handling corruption issues very badly has risen from 15 per cent to 19.4 per cent over the same period. We think there's a lot to be done to address foreign interference, but we do not believe that this legislation before us today is the right way to do it. Part of that reflects a set of concerns about the process to date. There was no regulatory impact statement prepared for this bill. There was no exposure draft released for comment and discussion. The committee process itself was rushed. Most of the state governments did not make a submission or appear before the inquiry. Given how important this legislation is, and how important it is to get it right, we think that is profoundly disappointing.

That rushed process is reflected in the fact that the committee heard evidence from Professor George Williams that there could be a challenge to this legislation from a state government on constitutional grounds, that there is a fundamental flaw in the very premise of the legislation that relationships with other countries are purely the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Professor Williams gave very compelling evidence to the inquiry that in fact the external affairs powers are invested in both the Commonwealth and the states. The Commonwealth actually does not have the right to overrule the states in the way outlined in this bill. Given the magnitude of the issues involved and the importance of getting it right it's extraordinary that something as fundamental as that hasn't been clarified before the government seeks to pass this bill.

There's a philosophical element too, whether it's appropriate that the Commonwealth should be the sole holder of this role. There's a strong argument that having multiple levels of engagement is actually a much healthier situation. In times like we're in at the moment, when Minister Birmingham isn't able to get his Chinese counterpart to pick up the phone on the escalating trade disputes, there is value to be had in multiple relationships and lines of dialogue, rather than all interactions resting in the hands of the foreign and the trade ministers. And if there is concern that the state governments and indeed universities and local governments don't have the skills to undertake the building of these relationships, an obvious way forward is to build their capacity rather than cutting them off at the knees.

You could argue that this legislation doesn't stop those multiple levels of engagement. But which state government is going to invest in developing a relationship and arrangements and collaborations with foreign governments in the knowledge that it can all be overturned, retrospectively, because the foreign minister doesn't think these arrangements are in our national interest? There's no appeal process. It doesn't have to be based on published foreign policy—just the view of the foreign minister that it's not in the national interest.

Given that flawed approach, it's unsurprising that we've got a profoundly flawed bill. The bill captures university arrangements in a blanket way, with potential enormous implications for their resourcing. Keep in mind that this is a sector that's been under massive pressure and attacked by the Liberal Party, and I'm sure my colleague Senator Faruqi is going to go into further detail. That's not to say that some of the relationships that universities have entered into have all been desirable. I had a memorable conversation about this bill with one expert who said it's no wonder universities have been entering foreign partnerships without necessarily doing their due diligence or determining whether these partnerships are in the national interest, or even the university's interest, because of the pressures they are under. They're at the top of the list for every vice-chancellor. At the top of the list of their key performance indicators has been developing MOUs with external parties, purely because of the massive decline in public funding.

Rather than imposing an unwieldy framework that universities haven't been consulted on, if the government wants to ensure that there is no risk of foreign interference in universities and wants to strengthen their capacity to undertake independent research, then a key step is providing secure, adequate funding. The Commonwealth should adequately fund universities, including increased research funding, a Commonwealth contribution to allow free higher education, and increased funding per student. Let me foreshadow that we will be moving amendments to reflect these concerns.

The other fundamental concern that we have with these bills is that they effectively provide an incredibly powerful tool for the foreign minister, with virtually no oversight. In fact, the bills specifically exempt the minister from judicial review and merit review. And I want to be clear that this isn't a criticism of the current foreign minister and to acknowledge the work of her office and her department on a number of difficult consular cases. However, the reality is that once the bill is passed the power sits with whomever the foreign minister may be and provides the executive with a very far-ranging power, without any checks, in perpetuity. We think it's crucial that anything close to the level of executive power provided by this bill has some level of transparency and oversight. Again, I foreshadow that we have a number of amendments to improve the processes set out in this bill, and I hope these amendments will be supported.

Let me be very clear. We agree that foreign interference is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but we think the approach the Liberal Party has taken is rushed and underdeveloped. We will be moving amendments to improve this bill, but we have profound concerns about the framework that is being proposed. In summary, to genuinely ensure integrity and transparency in Australia's political system, the Commonwealth should enact donations reform by banning political donations from the mining, property development, tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries and capping all other donations and make sure they disclose publicly in real time. They should root out corruption by establishing a federal anti-corruption commission and fund universities properly. We want to address foreign interference, and there's a lot we can and must do, but this bill isn't the right approach.

I now want to conclude by moving the second reading amendment that has been distributed in my name:

Omit all words after "That", insert:

", the bill be withdrawn; and

(a) The Senate notes that:

  (i) the bill as drafted creates a significant new scheme with wide-ranging implications;

  (ii) no public consultation process was undertaken on an exposure draft bill and there was no

regulatory impact statement prepared prior to the introduction of the bill; and

  (iii) stakeholders have raised a range of concerns about lack of consultation, the compliance

burden and impact of this bill; and

(b) The Senate calls on the Government to undertake more extensive consultation with the wide

range of stakeholders impacted by this proposed legislation".