Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Hansard source

She's been shut down. That may well be the case. In effect, Labor has not supported its own member's inquiry that she originally lodged and I co-sponsored. That should raise concerns, because Senator Kitching is a very solid senator. She is actually quite responsible. She could chair a very measured inquiry into China, and, in some sense, it's disappointing that Labor wouldn't support such an inquiry with her chairing this.

As an alternative, noting your pathway is no longer available to you, Labor, I'd like to see a Senate inquiry. It would take into consideration the full range of expertise and interests from within and outside the Australian government. While Australian government agency briefings are important, they're only part of the wider range of information and views that a Senate inquiry might consider. We need to hear from businesses, from universities, from non-government organisations, from strategic analysts, from diplomatic experts, from human rights advocates, from technologists and scientists and from the Chinese-Australian community organisations—indeed, from all interested members of the Australian public. A Senate committee could also usefully hear the views of the Chinese embassy. I think an invitation for the Chinese ambassador to appear would be essential. We could also hear the views of other governments about China, China's ranging role and China's standing in regional and global affairs. This is a vital relationship, and the parliament urgently needs to undertake a most rigorous and holistic inquiry to see how we can maximise benefits from a mutually beneficial trading relationship but equally gain understanding of where caution is warranted in Australia's national interests. We need to explore all of this. In earlier times in modern Chinese history, Communist Party of China Chairman Mao Zedong announced a policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend. That brief policy of liberalisation came to an end when Mao cracked down on those who criticised the communist regime, but the phrase has much resonance in the Australia-China policy debate today.

The rise of China is the biggest issue in our international relations and will be for the foreseeable future. This is not something on which the parliament can engage in self-censorship. If we are to build a solid, national consensus about how we manage this vitally important relationship, we need to explore all aspects. We need to openly examine all the options—all the pros, all the cons and all the trade-offs, strategic and economic. But one thing we can't trade off is our sovereignty and our freedom of our democratic institutions to consider international issues in the national interest. If we are to do that, we need to first let a thousand flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend.

The Senate references inquiry proposed by this motion is the way to do that in a rigorous, open and thoughtful way, engaging all elements of opinion with the Australian parliament—the coalition, Labor, the Greens and the crossbench. With that, we might just find our way through the current partisan controversies and move towards developing a forward-thinking approach to this critically important relationship that will enjoy support not only across this parliament but also across the broad Australian community. If we don't do that, and if the major parties decide that this is too hard and instead engage in further political self-censorship, then it might be that our policy choices have already been made for us and that Chinese soft power may already be being felt inside this chamber and may be very effectively reaching deep inside this chamber. As I said last week, this would bode ill for Australian democracy and for our sovereignty, and I commend this motion to the Senate.