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

The Greens will be supporting these amendments. They are a very similar result to an amendment that we're also putting forward. Having to provide reasons for decisions, having the ability to challenge those decisions, is fundamental. It's part of a framework where you have got accountability. We believe that accountability is fundamental to having a framework of actually working collaboratively together.

I think all of us here are on the same page when we think, 'Yes, it would be the best outcome if we have the Commonwealth, the state and territory governments, universities and local governments all on the same page, not cutting across each other and not making decisions that are in conflict with the decisions that the others are making.' If you've got a problem where that's occurring, the question is: how do you address it? I've done a lot of work in bringing groups of people together to work out how they can work together, see what their common aims are, see what their common purposes are and reach solutions together. I can tell you there is only one way to do it that will last, and that is to genuinely work together collaboratively, to genuinely talk with each other, to genuinely listen to each other, to genuinely hear and learn from each other and then to work together. The way that you do that is you set up a framework for those discussions that ensures that that's going to occur. You cannot have a framework where, despite lots of good words at the beginning, saying, 'Yes, we are going to work collaboratively, transparently and in an accountable way,' at the end of the day all the power rests with one person. That's the problem that we have with this legislation.

A framework actually set up for the states and Commonwealth to work together but which doesn't vest all that overarching power into the hands of the minister would be the way forward. There is clearly room for improvement compared with where we're currently at. As I said earlier, I don't think it is appropriate for state governments to be going off and signing the Belt and Road Initiative with China that the Commonwealth had no knowledge of or engagement in. That's not a sensible way forward. But there is a vast gulf between that situation and what's being proposed here. You can set up a framework that addresses that that doesn't then place all the power in the hands of the foreign minister in a way that does not have to be accountable. Yes, Minister, you might be committed to being accountable. You personally might be committed to providing reasons. Personally, your way of working may be collaborative. But, unless it's laid out in the legislation, it does haven't to occur. Unless you have guidelines for the decisions, a requirement to lay out guidelines for the reasons why a decision is being made and a requirement to actually provide reasons back to people to whom you are saying that arrangement can no longer occur, unless that is in the legislation, it doesn't have to occur. That is our concern.

I'm sure that it would have been possible to get a piece of legislation that addressed the vast majority of what you wanted to achieve with this legislation with multipartisan support, because there is support around this chamber and around this parliament for what I think the intent of this legislation is—to address the problem of making sure that those arrangements are in Australia's national interest. But the fact that you are not willing to accommodate very sensible amendments that put in place a framework of accountability shows that that cooperation is not present. That's why we are having to have this debate here today. It means that you're not going to get support from us. I don't understand the reasons. In fact, I don't think there have been sufficient reasons given as to why these very sensible amendments are not being supported by the government. Your response was, 'There are potential threats to our bilateral arrangements.' That's not a reason. There is room in this amendment to be able to redact information that is sensitive and shouldn't be in the public eye. This blanket approach of no guidelines, no review and no reasons for decisions is complete overreach and is setting up a regime that has the potential to be misused in the future.