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

I rise to put on the public record my concerns about not only the substance of this but this minister's failure to engage with us constructively. We are of the view that it's a pretty reasonable proposition when a minister is exercising this level of power—and it is a substantial power. Let's recall that this could enable whoever is there, perhaps this minister or possibly Peter Dutton—goodness me, imagine the power in his hands!—to just choose to exercise the power to stop Premier McGowan's agreements with some international entity. Obviously the BRI is in their sights—the Victorian one. There are some agreements Steven Marshall has with sister city arrangements. Whoever is in that seat, whether it's Marise Payne or Peter Dutton, could do so without giving the government notice and could make a decision without even writing down the reason for it. That's the kind of authoritarian power she's defending.

And I know Senator Payne doesn't like to pick up the phone, but there's an incredible amount of passivity associated with dealing with this legislation. Every day of consultation by this minister, which had been non-existent, was after the bill had been announced. I mean, really: that's not consultation. I think there's some suggestion that it's a privileged position to actually talk to people, but I just think it's good legislating. If you're going to introduce a power that gives you the discretion to veto agreements across subnational entities and universities, what's the problem with actually talking to people in order to work through how that might best work? That's called good government. But no, she didn't pick up the phone and didn't meet with them. We saw that on Qatar, too. Even with the engagement on foreign policy and the exchange with Senator Rice, I think it was, about why foreign policy isn't defined—and I actually understand the argument there—the minister's department has admitted that engagement with the affected entities on government foreign policy is ad hoc.

I indicated broad support for this legislation on the day it was announced, subject to constitutional remit and subject to looking at the detail. We hear from the minister's office and we want to be bipartisan. We send them our amendments—radio silence; not even the courtesy of a call. On this legislation, at this time, I would have thought they'd want some bipartisanship. During this time that we're going through—we saw what happened yesterday and the day before; we understand what Australia is dealing with—why not try to land an agreement? But no: just silence, and she just comes down here and airily dismisses it. Frankly, I think it's pretty poor form, and I'm putting that on the public record. It's deeply disappointing.

Nothing the minister has said on these issues around the accountability of the executive for this decision makes sense. Her arguments to Senator Patrick yesterday and today really don't hold up. I again put on record our willingness to consider an alternative proposition to deal with some of the issues the minister has raised, even though I believe that those issues are dealt with in the amendments we've proposed. But, again: radio silence. I can't work out whether it's just passivity or, frankly, arrogance—because I do think it's a pretty arrogant position to say the federal government is not accountable for the decisions it makes. So, I hope the Western Australians will have a think—whichever minister is there, whether it be Peter Dutton or someone like that—about which of Mark McGowan's propositions might be vetoed without reasonable notice.

I was hopeful we could actually have a sensible bipartisan discussion on this bill, but it appears this minister is unwilling or uninterested in doing so, and I express my disappointment, particularly at this time. I was going to move to other topics, but perhaps the Greens or Senator Patrick have further issues before I do so.