Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(1) The Senate notes that—

  (a) on 31 July 2019, Senator Patrick gave notice of a motion to refer the issue of Australia's relations with China to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report;

  (b) on 18 August 2019, Senator Wong wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs requesting comprehensive and detailed briefings for parliamentarians by relevant government agencies on Australia's relationship with China;

  (c) on 6 September 2019, Senator Wong formally reiterated her request;

  (d) on 9 September 2019, the Senate did not support Senator Patrick's motion, and the Opposition again reiterated its request to the Government for briefings on China for parliamentarians; and

  (e) on 11 September 2019, in response to a question from Senator Kitching, the Minister for Foreign Affairs advised the Senate that she would not support agency briefings relating to China as requested by the Opposition, but noted that relevant parliamentary committees "such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security or the foreign affairs, defence and trade committees" receive "extensive briefings" from agencies.

(2) The following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the final sitting: day of June 2020: Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China, with particular reference to:

  (a) the management of a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship between Australia and China;

  (b) Australian and Chinese perspectives on, and interests in, regional and global security issues;

  (c) trade, investment and infrastructure issues, including Australia's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative;

  (d) educational and research cooperation;

  (e) tourism, cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties;

  (f) management of diplomatic and consular arrangements;

  (g) dialogue on human rights issues;

  (h) the roles of Australian institutions in Australia's relations with China, including, state and local governments, universities and other academic bodies, business and non-government organisations; and

  (i) any related matters.

I am prompted to move this motion which, in its operative part, is identical to the motion that I put to the Senate about a week ago. It relates to Australia's relationship with China. It's simply too important for this parliament not to engage with this issue. The background to this motion is set out briefly in the first part of the motion.

On 31 July 2019, I gave notice of a motion to refer the issues of Australia's relationship with China to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report. On 18 August 2019, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Wong, wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, requesting comprehensive and detailed briefings for parliamentarians by relevant government agencies on Australia's relationship with China. On 6 September 2019, in a joint statement with Senator Kitching, Senator Wong formally reiterated Labor's request.

Last Monday 9 September 2019, the Senate debated my motion. The government's response to the motion, in its substance, amounted to no more than 96 words, and involved a declaration of the obvious: Australia's relationship with China is important, complex and needs to be managed from a national interest perspective. However, the government made no direct reference to the substance of the motion—that is, the proposed referral to the Senate FADT References Committee.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Before the break I was talking about the reason I'm again moving this motion to refer a very important matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. That matter, the relationship between Australia and China, is so important. As I was saying just before the break, the last time we debated this motion the government spoke to the motion for a total of 96 words. That's how important China is to the government. They said it was an important and complex relationship. That is a given. I didn't need to hear some government senator tell me that. It's pretty obvious. They really didn't make any substantial contribution to the motion, so then, of course, I looked to Labor.

The Labor Party indicated they wouldn't support the motion. They indicated that their preference, instead of holding a Senate committee inquiry, was to request the government to provide confidential briefings for parliamentarians on China. Other speakers, from the Greens and the crossbench, supported the motion, but, lacking support from both the government and the opposition, the motion was defeated by a majority of 32—44 noes to 12 ayes. It was an uncommon line-up for the major parties against the crossbench and also a very worrying instance of self-censorship by the Senate. In effect, the coalition and Labor indicated that they did not wish there to be a parliamentary inquiry into one of the most important questions in Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade policy. By any standards, it was a remarkable and quite perverse decision.

I might reluctantly have let the matter rest there except that, in this chamber on Wednesday the 11th—last Wednesday—in response to a question from Senator Kitching, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, advised the Senate that she would not support agency briefings relating to China as requested by the opposition. Senator Payne's response to the opposition was unambiguous. The government does not intend to share confidential information and assessments about China on a bilateral basis with opposition MPs and senators. However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs did note that relevant parliamentary committees 'such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security or the foreign affairs, defence and trade committees' receive 'extensive briefings from agencies'.

The PJCIS deals with many sensitive issues and, notwithstanding the prohibition on the reviewing of intelligence operations, does receive highly classified briefings from our intelligence agencies, including general assessments of Australia's security environment and foreign espionage and foreign interference threats. The PJCIS might be briefed on matters that are subject to very interesting reports such as that today from Reuters, which claims that Australian Signals Directorate has identified China as the power behind hacking activities directed against the Australian parliament and major political parties. However, we don't know whether that's the case because the government refuses to speak on such matters. Unlike the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the government is not prepared to talk openly about China's cyberespionage activities. In any case, while the PJCIS might be briefed on sensitive intelligence matters, it does not have the remit to examine wider questions of foreign policy, defence strategy, trade relations and people-to-people ties.

The broader aspects of Australia's international relationship are properly the scope of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. As I noted in debate last Monday, there is, of course, nothing unusual in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducting inquiries into Australia's relationship with various different countries. The Senate committee has done this before without controversy. For example, it did an inquiry in relation to China in 2005 and 2006. It did one into Papua New Guinea in 2010, the Indian Ocean region in 2013 and Mexico in 2015. Other parliamentary committees have also reviewed many aspects of Australia's relationship with China. In August 2012, for example, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled a report on Australia's human rights dialogue with China. At present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is conducting an inquiry into Australia's free trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong-China, and it held public hearings on that issue here in Canberra last week. So it seems logical that, given the government's refusal to agree with the opposition's request for confidential agency briefings on China, the senate, especially Labor, should again consider the establishment of an FADT references committee inquiry into Australia's relationship with China.

The bottom line is: you had an alternative approach, Labor. You laid it out and you said, 'We're going to get confidential briefings and that will negate the reason to have an inquiry into this most important issue.' You had an alternative approach, but that's been cut off at the knees by the foreign minister. That approach will not be entertained by the government. So now you have to think of something different to do, and I urge you to support this inquiry. This is the next best thing. In fact, I think the best thing to do is to have the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee conduct its inquiry. I know that members of the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee are enthusiastic about doing such an inquiry. In fact, it was Senator Kitching, the chair of that committee, who originally lodged this motion. She was quite enthusiastic about this particular motion going ahead.