Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer yesterday when he said the circumnavigation of Australia by Chinese Communist Party warships needed to be viewed in the context that Australia participates in the South China Sea. Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that, because Australia engages with allies in the South China Sea, the Chinese Communist Party is free to conduct live fire exercises without warnings off the South Coast of New South Wales?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Forrest will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister hasn't begun speaking. You're new to this place. Trust me, you do not want to interject before a minister speaks. That goes for both sides—during questions and before answers.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been an interesting start for the shadow minister for his new portfolio. It is a place where words matter, where much is read from little, and we have seen the shadow minister all over the place in terms of the way in which he is describing events internationally and, more to the point, the way in which he's asking questions in this place. But the shadow portfolio that he holds and the portfolio that I hold come with an enormous amount of responsibility for the national interest, and pursuing whatever interest he might have within the Liberal Party, in terms of that chair, should not be done at the expense of the national interest.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister is going to pause. I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct relevance. I think the minister was surprised to get this question from the Prime Minister, but the question pertains to the remarks in the House yesterday made by the Prime Minister, directly quoted, and asked about his conversation.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order! Point of order!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Boothby is warned. Any member is entitled to raise a point of order. That has now occurred. The manager in particular has the right to do that, as the Manager of Opposition Business. The Deputy Prime Minister has had a preamble, and we need to get to the question he was asked. He wasn't asked about the shadow minister. He was asked about statements by the Prime Minister. It was a narrow question, and the Deputy Prime Minister will need to be directly relevant to what he was asked.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've always understood that the maintenance and support of the global rules based order has been a matter of bipartisanship between the parties of government in this country. It underpins our national interest as a global trading nation—which relies on things such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation on the high seas, in international waters—and is the basis upon what this country does its exports and imports, the basis upon so much of the prosperity of our nation and so much of our national income. It's by virtue of that that the Royal Australian Navy does so much of its work in the South China Sea and the East China Sea to assert freedom of navigation, the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, on the high seas so that those trade routes, which are fundamental—

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don't you just answer the question? My question was about live-fire exercises.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm answering the question—to Australia's national interests, are being maintained. There is no-one, and I'd be amazed if the opposition is actually suggesting this, who is asserting that the task group that came around, in the vicinity of, Australia earlier in the year were in anywhere else other than in international waters. That is where they were. If the shadow minister is suggesting that that must not occur again, I want to understand what standard is being promoted by those over there, which would apply to Royal Australian Navy vessels when they are in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House is going to come to order so the Deputy Prime Minister can be heard.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The implication of the shadow minister's question yesterday and the implication of the shadow minister's question today is that those opposite do not support what is understood everywhere as the rights of all nations in respect of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and freedom of navigation. What are you saying about what the Royal Australian Navy should be able to do in the South China Sea and the East China Sea?