House debates
Wednesday, 11 November 2020
Bills
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading
12:33 pm
Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 and the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Corio has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
12:34 pm
Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Foreign relations has always been one of the most complex and delicate aspects of public and political life. Even before the internet and the advent of jet travel, understanding the interests of 200 nations and working to integrate and align them with our own across trade, defence, culture, science and technology, has always been an awesome and sometimes unenviable task. Today it is getting exponentially more complicated. The internet has made instant global communications commonplace and created millions of links between Australians and their counterparts in every nation. Most recently, we've begun to see regional governments around the world, including our very own states and territories, and even our local councils, building their own links and entering into arrangements with foreign governments directly. Many of these are welcome, and many of them benefit Australians. However, they raise important questions of consistency and oversight. We need to ensure that these arrangements are in keeping with our national interest.
The Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 will address that issue and ensure that we can all have confidence that our understandings with foreign governments will be a force for good in our community. In Australia, such arrangements are becoming increasingly common as states and territories look to pursue their own interests and priorities overseas. New South Wales has a memorandum of understanding with Israel's Ministry of Energy over the use of water resources. It has another with the government of Japan regarding material science and a third with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the subject of their activities in outer space—of all things!
Others raise more concerns. My own state of Queensland, in 2016, signed a memorandum of understanding with the US Navy regarding the supply of biofuels. Though the US is our most important military ally, we surely cannot allow a situation where state and territory governments can enter into supply arrangements with any foreign armed forces without proper Commonwealth oversight. Perhaps almost as worrying, the Queensland government has since the early 1990s regularly renewed a memorandum of understanding with Papua New Guinea which covers a wide range of areas of cooperation across business, governance and health. Though Papua New Guinea is also a very important regional partner, this arrangement comes disturbingly close to constituting a separate ongoing foreign policy towards PNG on the part of the state of Queensland.
Most concerning of all is the Daniel Andrews Victorian Labor government's memorandum of understanding with the National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China. Signed in October 2018, this MOU sets up a path to investment by China in infrastructure in Victoria under the controversial Belt and Road initiative. This initiative is one of the most strategically significant foreign policy actions currently pursued in our region by a foreign power. It has been the subject of considerable concern throughout the international community. As the Lowy Institute's report Understanding China's Belt and Road Initiative, among many others, describes, elements of this initiative meet obvious but understated national security and foreign policy aims for the Chinese Communist Party. These include priorities like providing alternative access routes for China's fuel supplies, delivering access to potential future military ports, and increasing China's economic influence over other nations in our region. Yet the Victorian government was able to sign up to pursue funding under this initiative without any substantive consultation with the Commonwealth government. Worse, the Commonwealth and the Victorian public have no visibility of any flow-on contracts arising from the implementation of this agreement. They have no ability to assess whether these contracts are in Australia's national interests because of the shroud of secrecy which covers this clandestine agreement.
More widely, at this stage the Commonwealth does not even know how many arrangements of this type have been entered into by state and territory governments, let alone what those agreements might hold. The government's research suggests that more than 130 arrangements have been entered into by states and territories with more than 30 countries. Yet, since there has to date been no formal obligation on the part of these governments to inform the Commonwealth when such an arrangement is made, this parliament's ability to have oversight over external affairs has been severely and seriously compromised.
Some would argue that this is not a problem and would question why we are so concerned about it. However, though we cannot know the intent of any particular agreement, we do know that there are overseas actors right now who are seeking to have influence contrary to our national interests over processes and outcomes throughout the Western world. Recent attempts to spread misinformation and shape the outcome of US elections on the part of state-sponsored Russian actors are indeed well documented. Concerning evidence summarised in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute report Hunting the phoenix has shown that the Chinese Communist Party has used seemingly innocuous talent recruitment programs in covert attempts to acquire technology from a wide range of Western democracies, including Australia. These high-profile cases are certainly not the only examples. They are far from the only foreign governments engaged in activities of this kind.
All countries around the world seek to protect their national security and promote their national interests. Where this can be done through commercial or other arrangements with an Australian state or territory, no doubt some other countries would pursue such an opportunity. In many cases this will be of mutual benefit, will be consistent with our nation's foreign policy and will be of little to no concern. However, the problem at present is that those states and territories which are entering into these agreements are not fully equipped to identify which arrangements are benign and beneficial and which are not.
Our state and territory governments do not have full access to the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They do not have experienced teams of diplomats embedded in nations across the world. They do not have full access to the information provided by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service or the Australian Signals Directorate or the intelligence shared by our Five Eyes partners. When the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the cabinet make decisions about our foreign policy and what arrangements with other countries are consistent with our national interest, they do so with the benefit of all of that information. They do it on the basis of the decades of experience provided by DFAT officials at home and overseas. As the world becomes smaller and more interconnected, and relationships between nations more complex, this input only becomes more critical. With the best will in the world, states and territories simply do not have access to the breadth and depth of expertise and information they need to make these appropriate and informed decisions. Ultimately, this practical truth proceeds from an important foundational principle.
Section 51 of the Australian Constitution reserves the power to legislate on external affairs to this Australian parliament. The High Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that it is the Commonwealth government that has the power to set and administer our foreign policy. There is a very good reason for this. Like any organisation or group of people, while Australians have our internal debates and robustly disagree amongst ourselves when it comes to interacting with external parties, we must speak with one voice on the world stage. Our interests as Australians do not always align with the interests of other nations. Tough negotiation and robust interactions are occasionally necessary even as friendship and cooperation exists. In that situation, it would be highly damaging for all Australians if a foreign actor believed that there were other powerful institutions in this country that would undermine our position of strength and help them achieve their objectives. Once again, as the world becomes more interconnected and the links between governments, corporations and public institutions at all levels grow, this ability to speak with one voice is more important now than it ever has been.
The Morrison government has been very alive to this emerging challenge and has put in place a comprehensive program of legislation to militate against it. This bill is one of the cornerstones of that effort.
The bill recognises that different arrangements have a different scope and potential impact, depending on the levels of government involved. It separates arrangements into two tiers. In the first tier are those arrangements entered into between Australian state and territory governments themselves and foreign national governments, which are likely to be of the greatest scope and impact. In the second tier are arrangements of a usually more limited scope such as those entered into by state and territory governments with regional governments overseas or those negotiated by individual Australian regional councils and also public universities. This bill would apply different requirements on the two tiers of arrangements. For the first tier, of core foreign arrangements, state and territory entities would be required to attain the foreign minister's approval before entering into any formal negotiations or signing an agreement. For the lesser, non-core foreign arrangements, the state or territory entity has only to inform the foreign minister before entering into the arrangement and to give the minister the opportunity to prohibit its formalisation.
However, importantly, the minister would retain the power to cancel any existing or future arrangement entered into by a state or territory entity whenever he or she became aware that it was no longer in the national interest. The minister's declaration would make the arrangement invalid and unenforceable or require its amendment as necessary. This is a critically important part of the bill.
Foreign policy and the national interest are fast-moving and ceaselessly changing. They are shaped by the changing needs and will of the Australian people. They respond to the actions of more than 200 other nations and seven billion individuals around the globe. What is in this nation's best interests today may not be tomorrow, and the minister must always have the ability to respond appropriately. This power will be reinforced by schedule 1 of the bill, which requires state and territory entities to inform the minister of all pre-existing arrangements so that they can be properly assessed against our national interest today. Ultimately, the details of such arrangements would be placed on a public register for all Australians to see. It is difficult to argue against that transparency.
This bill will bring our country's arrangements with foreign governments out of the shadows. It will ensure that Australians can have confidence that their elected governments are speaking with one voice and protecting their national interest together. Just as importantly, it will give our state and territory governments the tools that they need to go out and make safe arrangements that will benefit the Australians that they represent. I commend the bill to the House.
12:49 pm
Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.
1:02 pm
Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The instability of our region remains one of the greatest challenges this country is facing. It affects our trade, our economy, the ability of Australian companies to expand internationally and the global flow of capital. Complacency is not an option when it comes to our foreign policy. Whilst it may seem far removed from the lives of working Australians, the reality is that that could not be further from the truth. If we are to maintain our close ties and friendships with nations across the world and continue to enjoy the benefits of fruitful trade agreements, we must have a smarter foreign policy process. This is necessary as we seek to safeguard our interests and support global prosperity, particularly in the wake of the pandemic.
We are a small country compared to many of our regional neighbours, and if we are to be heard we must speak with one voice. It is a strength of our democratic process that we engage in rigorous debate and allow for dissenting voices. However, we must also recognise that there is a time for unity and solidarity when it comes to our engagement on the world stage. In Australia, we take open markets for granted. Most nations cannot. We take a free press as the assumed status quo. Most nations do not.
We must therefore recognise that, when it comes to supporting not only aspirational Australians but international trade and freedom, we cannot cut corners. We are part of this smarter foreign policy agenda. We must create a streamlined process where the best interests of Australians in all states and territories are looked after. This means not having contradictory memorandums of understanding coming out of different parts of Australia. It means ensuring that the academic integrity and high standards of our educational system are safeguarded. It means countries throughout the world know Australia as that light on a hill, supporting democracy, freedom and enterprise. This bill, the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, will ensure that these ideals which are at the core of Australia are upheld and protected both here and around the world.
The changing nature of the power structures shaping the international environment requires states and territories to be working closely with the Commonwealth government. The relative peace and stability that have underpinned Australia's prosperity can no longer be taken for granted. As a nation, we are increasingly being required to forge our own path and take leadership both in our region and in connection with specific issues. We are a young country, but there are many that are younger and more fragile and require strong leadership in times of uncertainty. Playing domestic politics on the world stage is a sure way to diminish our global effectiveness and strain important strategic relationships. The proposed legislation creates a streamlined process to resolve this issue. Australians are best served when we are able to represent ourselves with clarity concerning international agreements. It means not allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to the divide-and-conquer tactics which some nations employ to pursue their own agendas.
The process that this legislation creates is long overdue. It was assumed for many decades, and by successive leaders, that Australia's foreign policy was the exclusive domain of the Commonwealth government, which had the resources, personnel, information and skills to make the right decision for all Australians. It is unfortunate that some state and local governments have made the choice to go beyond their jurisdictions, knowing full well that they do not have the relevant departmental personnel to make these decisions. Australian voters do not go to the ballot box thinking their councillors or state members will be directing the foreign policy of the entire nation, and nor should they. Yet many have gone beyond their elected responsibilities and failed to provide even a modicum of transparency.
Engaging in foreign policy should not be something that is done on an ad hoc basis by elected members without support from the relevant department or consultation with key stakeholders. Democracy is not about taking unilateral action or attempting to run a proxy foreign policy that serves the vested interests of a minority. The Commonwealth government was elected by the people of Australia to represent their interests as a whole. The proposed legislation not only reflects the appropriate roles of government within Australia but reinforces those responsibilities outlined in our Constitution. The economic stability of our nation is built on friendly relations with our neighbours. We rely on trade and enjoy close ties to much of the rest of the world. It is a testament to the successful foreign policy we have engaged in to date and our high standing internationally. If we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of strong international ties, we cannot afford to mix messages or allow contradictory agreements to be signed.
This legislation creates a reliable framework for engaging with the rest of the world at a time when we need to be supporting jobs, growth and investment. Bills such as this support international confidence in our nation and help Australian businesses plan for the future. This is an important aspect of economic recovery and building integrity into our systems at all levels of government. This bill instils consistency in how we deal with foreign governments. It ensures that our national interests come first and that no special international groups or ideological cliques have the ability to pursue an agenda at odds with what is best for Australians. This bill is not about intruding into states and territories or trying to tell local governments how to operate. It is ensuring that in our dealings with foreign governments our national interest and values are reflected, putting freedom and fairness at the heart of what we do. This bill does not affect engagement with corporations. This is a government that supports entrepreneurship and innovation, which are the foundation of our nation's economic prosperity and that of many other countries.
This legislation requires that due diligence is given to international arrangements as an effective mechanism to support Australian interests globally. As part of this process, we are requiring the states, territories and local governments to complete a stocktake of international agreements that they are currently engaged in so that a review of these agreements can take place. A public register of these agreements will be created to ensure that there is a high level of transparency, and any arrangements with foreign governments are open for the debate that makes this country strong. If it is found that some of the agreements are not in the best interests of all Australians, the Commonwealth government retains the power to rescind the agreement or, if necessary, obtain an injunction in the Federal Court or the High Court to enforce that decision.
One of the telltale signs that this legislation is long overdue is that the Commonwealth has little to no oversight of many of the international agreements that the states, territories and councils have signed, despite the fact that ultimate responsibility for foreign policy resides with the Commonwealth. Were relations with other countries to become a political football, it would seriously undermine both our international credibility but also our capacity to represent and defend the interests of Australians abroad. The instability of our region makes this simply dangerous. It cannot benefit Australia in any way. The place for debate around foreign policy rests within the federal government. This legislation is targeted, with much of the normal business that is conducted being completely unaffected. As a government that supports free enterprise and innovation, we have focused this legislation to create an environment which is conducive to business seeking to act fairly.
Foreign policy requires a long-term vision for our strategic interests, which should not be dependent on state, territory or council interests. International relations remains one of the most challenging areas in our region, contained due to a number of hotspots which are the source of global tension. It is precisely the delicate nature of these flashpoints and the way in which other nations are operating that require us to take a long-term view of our strategic interests. In support of peace and stability, we cannot allow the internal debates around our foreign policy agenda to be played out on the international stage. Parliament is the chamber for debate, and responsibility for foreign policy clearly rests with the Commonwealth government, who takes a national view, representing the interests of all Australians regardless of which state, territory or local government area that they come from.
As part of the implementation of this legislation, engaging with key stakeholders is taking place. This is especially the case with universities who we understand may be uniquely affected by this bill. Over the long term, the increased cooperation will enable the full resources of the federal government to inform decision-making by states, territories, local governments and other organisations. Ultimately, this benefits working Australians by creating healthy and transparent systems that impact how we do business both here and around the globe. For these reasons, I recommend this bill to the House.
1:13 pm
Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In summing up, I thank those who have spoken on the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 for their contributions to this debate; it's an important topic. This bill reflects the government's commitment to ensuring that when Australia speaks on the world stage, we speak with one voice. And the bill appropriately reflects the Commonwealth's critical role in leading and managing Australia's foreign relations. It is the Commonwealth government that is responsible for foreign policy, and only the Commonwealth has the necessarily expertise and experience to manage Australia's foreign relations. Importantly, the Commonwealth's power in respect of foreign affairs is founded in the Constitution, and that has always been the case. But under current processes there is no requirement for states and territories to consult with the Commonwealth on arrangements with foreign governments. This is a gap which must be remedied and, I believe, has the support of the Australian people.
This bill establishes a process that will protect our national interest and ensure the consistency of our foreign policy. The government recognises the important contributions that states, territories, local government and universities make to Australia's international engagement. We want this to continue. This bill is not about restricting international engagement. It is not about interfering in the states' and territories' business. Put simply, it is all about due diligence. The Commonwealth must have an oversight of all arrangements concluded at all levels of government in Australia with foreign countries. If an arrangement would be inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy or adverse to our foreign relations, then it should not proceed. It is the Commonwealth's role to make these adjustments and these judgements. We want states and territories, local governments and universities to have confidence when they negotiate or enter arrangements that they are acting consistently with Australia's broader foreign policy. This is exactly what this bill provides. It will give states and territories the support they need to undertake effective, appropriate and informed international engagement. The government looks forward to working with all stakeholders to implement the legislation.
The consequential bill, the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, reflects the government's commitment to protecting and promoting Australia's national interests. In an increasingly complex global environment, it is critical that the Commonwealth and the states and territories speak with one voice, and this proposed legislation will ensure that at all levels of government Australia takes a consistent approach to engagement with foreign governments. The consequential bill's amendments to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 will help support a strong and consistent framework, ensuring arrangements between state and territory governments and foreign governments and related entities do not adversely affect Australia's foreign relations and are not inconsistent with our foreign policy. This is not about excessive intrusion into states' and territories' business; instead, these changes ensure that we are giving the appropriate due diligence to all our international arrangements to ensure they are consistent with Australia's national interests and values, and the Australian people expect nothing less.
Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Corio has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.