Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

How about you tell them not to interject as well as telling me to ignore it? That would at least be even-handed—yes? I'll make the point that it is not true to say they were always in contemplation, unless the government simply thinks that refusing to talk to stakeholders is appropriate. The universities of Australia have said they were blindsided. They didn't receive information. They were not told they were in the bill. They didn't receive a copy of the bill. They found out in the announcement. So I find it hard to accept the minister's assertion that they were always in contemplation. That is simply at odds with the evidence that the Senate committee heard, but also, importantly, at the Senate estimates.

I'd also make this point: I actually think there is a meritorious argument to include universities. I think the way in which this was done lacked the sort of engagement you would want. If you're actually serious about enhancing the nation's resilience, resilience to foreign interference and resilience to the sorts of challenges Australia faces, it's not simply engendered by a veto power that rests with the minister; it's also engaging with the entities, with institutions that are important to our democracy, whether it's parliamentarians, the parliament or the university sector, about what they both should and should not do in order to safeguard our sovereignty. There's a positive as well as a negative responsibility on government, not just veto but actually helping people do the right thing in the first place. That was the logic behind the University Foreign Interference Taskforce. That is the process in which they were engaged. And then they end up in legislation which they had no foresight of or consultation around. I think that really does undermine the minister's assertion to this chamber that they were always in contemplation. If she's telling the truth there, why didn't she tell them?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong—

If she's accurate—what would you like me to say?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: 'Accurate' would be a better word.

Yes, sure. If she's accurate there, if her assertion is accurate, why didn't she tell them? Surely you'd actually engage with our fourth-largest export industry and institutions that are important to our democracy. They're not just about professional training; they're about ideas and research. Surely the government would engage with them. Why didn't the minister engage with them personally before announcing that they'd be covered by this legislation? That is the question.