Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Just last month, the minister said:

The Government believes the UN remains central to maintaining the rules and institutions that underpin a free, open, inclusive and prosperous global order.

In his speech to the Lowy Institute last week, the Prime Minister warned of 'an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy'. Was the Prime Minister referring to the United Nations?

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

I thank Senator Kitching very much for the opportunity to refer, at some length, to the Prime Minister's speech to the Lowy Institute, because it is convenient, of course, to read selective quotes from a significant set of remarks, but I think it's important to take them in context. If you were to take them in context—which is not convenient for the opposition—the Prime Minister made a number of observations. For example, he observed:

We have entered a new era of strategic competition—a not unnatural result of shifting power dynamics, in our modern, more multi-polar world and globalised economy.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

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

The question was very simple. It was whether or not when the Prime Minister warned of 'an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy,' he was referring to the United Nations.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm listening carefully to the minister's answers. I believe it is directly relevant for the minister to be answering the question by referring to other contents in that very speech. I think that is directly relevant and a narrower construction than the word 'relevant' would imply.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't know who he was talking about.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be helpful, Senator Pratt, if I could offer rulings on points of order your leader has raised without your interjections.

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

If Senator Pratt is finding it hard to get the call on the other side, we could allocate one of our questions to her, I presume. As I was saying—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Senator Pratt seems to be seeking the call; I was pointing that out. As I was saying—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong! Senator Cormann, on a point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under our standing orders, interjections are always disorderly, but they're particularly disorderly in the way they were just thrown across the table by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I would ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! They are particularly disorderly from the centre table, where leaders are granted extra liberality in the application of the rules. I ask them to lead by example. There is the time for debate of this after question time. Senator Payne is to continue.

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

And the Prime Minister went on in his remarks through a number of the challenges that we face in the current strategic environment. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a Prime Minister to do. He also talked about the changes and the impact they have on Australia on a number of areas—on our jobs, on our environment, on our safety and on our freedom. Our freedom—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and with all of the courtesies, interjections are disorderly, and these are particularly uncalled for interjections. I asked you to call Senator Wong to order.

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

You did call me to order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do so again. You correctly point out that I did call you to order, Senator Wong. I will call you to order again. I would ask all senators to obey the call to order when their name is mentioned—at least to count to 30 before they interject again.

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

What I was going to say was, before the remarks to which Senator Kitching alludes, the Prime Minister talks about the impact on our freedom—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

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

I again raise a point of order of direct relevance. She can read the whole speech out as a way of avoiding answering the question, but the question is: 'To whom was the Prime Minister referring when he talks about "an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy"? Was it the United Nations?' Reading the rest of the speech out, in my submission, does not comply with the direct relevance provisions of the standing orders.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Payne?

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

If Senator Wong had listened to what I was saying in my most recent submission to the Senate in response to Senator Kitching, I said that the paragraph to which I was referring immediately preceded the paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred. They need to be considered together. Selective quoting is convenient for the opposition, but it's not accurate and it's not truthful and therefore it's not unexpected from them.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Senator Wong, with respect, I believe your point of order goes to the nature of the answer. The issue of direct relevance does not go to the nature of the answer, only to whether the content of the answer is directly relevant. I do believe a minister providing an answer that refers to a speech raised in the question is directly relevant.

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

Mr President, I accept your ruling. I'd ask you to consider this and take advice from the Clerk, having looked at the Hansard and the questions after question time, and perhaps respond to the chamber tomorrow.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to do so.

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

As I was saying, the impact on our freedom depends on our dedication to national sovereignty, the resilience of our institutions and our protection from foreign interference.

Senator Wong interjecting—

In that context, the Prime Minister went on to—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann on a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've now ruled twice on points of order raised by Senator Wong. She is again interjecting, seeking to raise the same point of order that she previously said she accepted. I would ask you to call Senator Wong to order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will always take a request from senators, particularly leaders, to reconsider an issue on a ruling I have given. But the ruling I have given will stand until and unless I reconsider it, so I will ask senators to cease interjecting on the same point, whether it is to me or to the minister.

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

As I was saying, he went on to say, after that paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred— (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister warned against 'negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill-defined borderless global community'. Can the minister advise the Senate which international agreements Australia has signed up to involuntarily?

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

I don't believe there's any reference or implication in the Prime Minister's remarks that indicate signing up to international agreements involuntarily. What the Prime Minister does say is that globalism needs to facilitate. It needs to align. It needs to engage. It needs to do that, rather than direct and centralise, because an approach of that nature can corrode support for joint international action. I think it's fair to say that in 2019 we are at peak commentary from those opposite and from multiple sources around the world. We are at a point or an inflection in time where peak commentary is the way of the world. Trying to navigate a clear path through that in the national interest is what you should expect your Prime Minister and foreign minister to do, and that is what we are doing.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What multilateral institutions was the Prime Minister talking about when he warned about the dangers of negative globalism?

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

I think the most important thing that the Prime Minister was referring to is exactly what I just said. As the speech says, we need to have institutions and we need to have an approach to globalism that facilitates, aligns and engages rather than directs and centralises. I don't think that is a provocative statement to make. I think it is a considered statement by a Prime Minister who is taking a serious engagement in matters of international relations and foreign affairs.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I think Senator Payne has concluded her answer, Senator Wong.

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

Without answering the question.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne has concluded.