Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Just briefly, for the record, let me note—because I don't think it was clear for the vast majority of Senator Rice's speech—that two amendments were passed through the Senate and, when the bill was considered in the House of Representatives, one of those was accepted and continues as part of the bill; the other was not.

The amendment which was accepted was for the minister to make an annual report to the Senate on the implementation of the bill and for that matter to be referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee by Senate resolution of continuing effect. So the procedures of that committee to examine the implementation of the Australia's foreign relations bill and the decisions made by the minister will continue; that amendment was clearly accepted. We have not accepted the amendment in relation to the application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act for the many reasons I cited last week, and I want to thank Senator Patrick particularly for his engagement on this matter.

In relation to consultations, I would advise the chamber once again that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade conducted over 60 consultations across state, territory and local governments and universities as well. The bill does include a number of important transparency, scrutiny and accountability provisions. For the first time, there will be a register of all such arrangements. The decisions that are made by the foreign minister will be included on that register. There is an ability to claim judicial review of the decisions of the foreign minister. As I've said, there's now an annual report to parliament—an opposition amendment which was agreed by the government in the House of Representatives. The rules that the foreign minister makes are disallowable by the parliament. We incorporated, by our own amendment in the House of Representatives, a review of the scheme after three years.

I would note, as I said to the chamber in committee last week, that the factors in section 51 that are to be taken into account form a clear and open part of the minister's consideration. The scheme contemplates—and, it could be argued, in fact mandates—increased consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on its expertise on foreign policy and foreign relations. There is also the availability of compensation for acquisition otherwise than on just terms.

Underneath all of that, as the foundations of the bill, I would remind the committee that the scope of the bill and the level of the obligations for the entities covered by the bill are carefully calibrated for the risk that may attach to foreign arrangements that they may make. But also remember the point we have made repeatedly that, of course, these arrangements are often beneficial and welcome and in the vast majority of cases will continue unaffected. It is important, I believe, to remember that this bill proposes a framework that carefully balances accountability, timeliness of decisions, administrative burdens and statutory frameworks.

As I said earlier, the government believes that the committee should not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The CHAIR: The question is that the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.