Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commence my remarks by noting that today is Remembrance Day, and I express my gratitude to all those Australian men and women who, over the years, have served within our defence forces and particularly remember those who lost their lives in doing so.

Foreign influence is a very serious matter. It's a problem across the world. Too many countries, often through corrupt governments, are influenced by other countries. That's why I support government efforts to prevent any form of foreign influence that undermines Australia's national interest. So I support the intent of this legislation, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020. However, the legislation is poorly drafted. The drafting leaves too many unanswered questions. It creates too many uncertainties and therefore the bill will become extremely difficult, in my opinion, to administer. That is why I speak in support of the amendments moved by Labor.

It is also clear from listening to government speakers that the prime target of this legislation is China. Foreign policy is always complex, particularly given the globalised world we live in and the multinational operations of big business. Disentangling business interests from government responsibilities has become near impossible. It becomes even more complex when the legislation seeks to control the activities of other levels of government and our universities. There is little doubt in my mind that questions about the constitutional overreach of this legislation will arise. I note that the previous speaker referred to section 51 of the Constitution. Again, with all matters relating to the Constitution, usually we know where we stand when they have been tested in the courts.

Most Australian state and local governments already have established links with overseas countries, including trade agreements, research collaborations, sister-city partnerships, sporting exchanges, student exchanges between public schools and even high commissions in different countries, and so on. Any attempts to interfere with those relationships will very likely cause both tension and disagreement between the Commonwealth and the other levels of government, which immediately raises the question: who was consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation? Were all the state, territory and local governments consulted and, if so, what was their response—or were they simply advised that this legislation was being presented to parliament? Were the universities and high schools who host international students or engage in annual student exchange programs consulted about this legislation, and how will it affect them? We simply don't know.

There is too much vagueness about this legislation, with interpretation and decision-making ultimately left to the foreign minister of the day. The reality is, when responsibility is left with an individual member of government, that individual member of government will change over the years. That creates, again, a level of uncertainty about legislation. The most secure way of having certainty into the future is that the legislation be very clear so that decisions are not left with any one individual. Such as approach leaves too much uncertainty and creates too much risk, the end result being lengthy and costly legal disputes—risks that can become very costly for Australia as a nation and for individual households and businesses.

Right now, too many Australian industry sectors are facing a crisis because of the uncertainty relating to trade with China. Australian exporters of wine, seafood, sugar, timber, coal, copper, barley and perhaps other products of which China is a major buyer now face that uncertainty. Those Australian industry sectors have been left stranded because of this government's deteriorating relationship with China. Whilst government members come into this place and take a tough stance against China, Australian farmers, miners, winemakers and fishers become sacrificial lambs. Whilst Australia has left itself exposed by its overreliance on China, it was only a few years ago that this government—which now backpedals—was promoting more trade with China. Nor is finding new markets for Australian exports, as the trade minister and other government members advocate, that simple a matter. It takes years to establish those markets. In the meantime, the products that are sitting on wharves both here and in China will obviously perish and be of no use.

I also note that this legislation includes arrangements between the universities. It is common practice for universities throughout the world to collaborate on projects, particularly on research projects—just as we are currently seeing with the COVID-19 vaccine. That collaboration is written into agreements and contracts, all of which may be subject to this legislation. International cooperation is also important to Australian universities because international students are a major source of income for them. International education, which is made up mostly of university students, is worth nearly $40 billion annually to the Australian economy. I understand that it's the fourth-largest export of our country, with over half a million international students coming here every year. We have seen the impact of COVID-19 on international border closures and the impact that has had on the university sector right across our country. In South Australia, international students are worth around $2 billion a year to the economy—for our state, that's a significant amount of money. So if we're going to jeopardise that even further with legislation then we need to think very carefully as to whether the legislation is properly structured and makes absolutely clear what is and is not allowed.

Now we're reading reports that China is also discouraging students from studying in Australia because of the deteriorating relationship—again, adding further to the economic woes of our country and the university sector. That is why foreign relations and foreign policy must always be handled sensitively. Yet this legislation does not adequately define either foreign relations or foreign policy. What do those two terms mean? Again, that is subjective and, ultimately, will rest with the government of the day and, in particular, the minister of the day. Indeed, the term 'national interest', which this legislation seeks to protect, is itself a matter of interpretation and a matter of opinion. We can all argue about what is in the national interest from a different perspective, and one person's perspective might very well be different from that of another. That's why the legislation should have been a lot clearer and Labor has moved amendments to it—to try to provide some clarity and certainty and, therefore, protect the national interest in a way which everybody understands. This legislation doesn't do that.

The legislation also fails to provide matters of procedural fairness, merits review and judicial review. I note that this is not the first piece of legislation that has come into this place where procedural fairness, judicial review and merits review are not included by this government. It seems to be becoming a trend of this government to do that. That begs the question: is it because this government doesn't want any accountability or oversight of the legislation that it brings into this place and, therefore, of its own governance? The omission of judicial review, procedural fairness and merits review goes to the heart of ensuring the integrity of all laws that come into this place and certainly this particular legislation.

The bill—and I note the comments of the minister in the second reading speech—provides that state and territory entities will require approval from the Minister for Foreign Affairs before commencing negotiations or entering into a core arrangement with another country. Does that mean state, territory or local governments, or even universities, can't even begin to have a discussion with another party in another country without first getting the approval of the minister? If it does, that will simply obstruct what could be agreements and partnerships that are in our national interest.

I also note that the bill empowers the foreign minister to review any existing or prospective arrangement involving state, territory and local government entities, including the universities. Again, the previous speaker quite rightly pointed to the many agreements that are already in place. Will they all be subject to this scrutiny, and does that mean some of them will have to be withdrawn? Who's going to carry out that work, and at what cost will it be done? This legislation, in my view, has been very poorly thought through.

I will finish on this matter, because again a number of government speakers have come into this place and criticised the actions of some of the state governments with respect to the arrangements and agreements that they have entered into with other countries, particularly with China. I make it clear that it was on this government's watch and under the Country Liberal Party's leadership in the Northern Territory that the Port of Darwin was leased for 99 years. It was leased to the Landbridge Group for $506 million—effectively $5 million a year. It was on this government's watch that that happened. So, whilst members opposite come in and criticise state governments for the arrangements that they have entered into, perhaps they should look carefully at their own decisions with respect to that, because that decision was, in my view, one of the most foolish decisions ever made within this country. It was criticised, quite rightly, not only by a number of people in this country who have, I believe, a fair degree of security expertise but by other governments as well. Yet it happened on this government's watch.

I close by making this very strong point: Labor opposes not the intent of this bill but the way it has been drafted. If we want to ensure that the national interest is protected, the best way we can do that is not to allow it to be subjected to the whims of the minister of the day but to draft legislation that makes it absolutely clear how the national interest is going to be protected so that that can be abided by not only by the federal government but by each of the state, territory and local governments and the university sectors who will be subject to this legislation.

See this speech in context