Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | 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.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

She's been shut down.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | 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.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

In offering my support for Senator Patrick's motion, there is a note of caution which I want to put on the record. Of course, it is that Australia's national interest always has to come first, and the government must make judgement calls in areas of national security, defence and intelligence. In my history and my experience in this place, governments of both political persuasions have been quite diligent about advising and updating those of us who have been on the crossbench or, when I was part of a major party, on the back bench with appropriate briefings, marked by the requirement to keep things confidential.

I support this motion because I think there are a whole range of areas in which our relationship—our business partnership, in some respects—with China needs some scrutiny, and there are a raft of them. You could talk about foreign students in this country. You could talk about tourism. You could talk about our trade relationship, of course, and our foreign investment. There are issues such as human rights, which have been canvassed by Senator Patrick earlier, but ultimately it comes back to this: if you don't know how much influence your major customer has—and China, quite frankly, is our major customer—then they can effectively control your business. My deep concern is that if the Communist Party of China decides to pull the pin on the Australian economy by not allowing any more foreign students to come here because we're asking them to actually study rather than be political activists, or if they say, 'We're going to punish you and not buy your iron ore or your cattle because you're not pursuing our policy intentions or you're challenging us in the South China Sea,' or if they say, 'We're not going to have Australia on the approved tourist limit,' effectively our economy—and I truly believe this—would be crippled. I don't want to see that happen. But I don't know whether that is the case or not because I don't know the full extent of the Chinese diaspora, the Chinese trade or the Chinese investment and how important these sections and elements of the industry have been to our national wellbeing.

When it comes to aspects of human rights, let me put this on the record: the disruption in Hong Kong is because those who are perhaps most familiar with the Chinese system of government outside of mainland China itself didn't want to have an extradition agreement. They know the rule of law does not apply in China as it does in this country, or as it does in many Western democracies. There is a 99.9 per cent conviction rate. You don't even have to go to trial; you can just be locked up in the gulags. It astounds me that a previous coalition government, led by Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, wanted to pursue, and were prepared to ratify, an extradition agreement for Chinese Australians to be sent over to face a 99.9 per cent conviction rate. It was one of my proudest moment in this Senate when a disallowance motion was moved and the Greens got on board very early, the crossbench got on board very early and the Labor Party got on board and, essentially we disallowed that instrument.

But what was the fathoming by the Australian government at the time—the Malcolm Turnbull-Julie Bishop government—that they were going to send Chinese Australians off to face the 99.9 per cent conviction rate? They wouldn't do it with North Korea and they wouldn't do it with Cuba. But why? What happened? How did our politics become so influenced and captive to them if it's not just about trade?

Another proud moment was on 7.30 when I was asked about former Senator Dastyari's begging of a billionaire to pay his $1,500 travel bill. It unravelled a can of worms—a thread that we can keep tugging on today because we do not know how deep the influence goes.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Your greatest legacy!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not my greatest legacy, Senator Whish-Wilson, it's one of the many legacies I will leave here! And I will go through those for a very long time in my valedictory speech. In fact, it could go for several hours, Senator Whish-Wilson! You will feature prominently in it.

But there are serious issues at work here, and unless we can get to the bottom of them and confront the relationship we have to have then we are essentially flying blind. And so my interest is not so much in knowing how many times the Chinese government and other governments try to hack into the Parliament House computer system. I'm a big boy; I know these things happen all over the world. It's about the integrity of our system. How reliant are we, as a government and as a nation, on a foreign country? How influenced are we in our affairs being predetermined by the actions of someone somewhere else?

This is a universal concern. There are those on the Liberal coalition side, there are those on the crossbench and there are those on the Labor side who are concerned about this. One of them, of course, is former senator Stephen Conroy, who was trying to push the Labor government to have freedom-of-navigation exercises through the South China Sea. But too many politicians bought the whole idea of, 'No, we're not militarising, we're just sort of colonising a couple of atolls.' Now they've parked guns, bombs, railways and airstrips there. It's a direct challenge and a direct confrontation to our wellbeing.

I understand that the government is sensitive about it and I understand there are areas where they don't want to discuss it; they don't want to upset the Chinese government. But we have to bell the cat on this; if you only have one customer, or if you have a customer that effectively controls your whole production and the wellbeing of your business, then they own your business. Australia shouldn't be for sale, and this is one way we can get to the bottom of just how much of our sovereignty we've outsourced to another nation.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the risk of stating the obvious, as Senator Patrick referred to earlier, I will make a contribution on behalf of the government. It's similar to contributions that have been made previously on very similar references—that is, about our relationship with China, which, as has been characterised, is important, complex and engages the full range of national interests. Our government will continue to be clear and consistent in the management of our relations with China. We reject any attempts to politicise this. There's great benefit to our close cooperation with China on issues of mutual interest, including on how we contribute to regional prosperity, stability and security. We manage any bilateral difficulties from a national interest perspective on a basis of mutual respect, including on issues of sovereignty, for which we make no apology.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I would like to say that One Nation supports the motion that Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and preparation of a report—a report into the club. We have a Liberal-Labor duopoly that is opposed to this motion—or was last week. Labor said, as I recall, that they are opposing this motion because they will get a private briefing. The government ruled that out, so what will Labor do now? Let's stand up and support an inquiry.

Then we see Labor prosecuting Gladys Liu over the Liu affair. Fair enough, I say. What about the donations? But there has been no reference to the substance of the material in this motion from the Labor-Liberal duopoly. Last week Senator Patrick's vote enabled the government to escape scrutiny over the Liu affair. I don't know Senator Patrick's reasons for that, but it raises questions. It is imperative that China and Australia maintain a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship, but it's imperative that that relationship is based solidly on mutual respect. Parliament needs to be held accountable with evidence and that can only come from intense scrutiny. As Senator Patrick and Senator Bernardi have said, there's nothing to be feared from such scrutiny. It can only lead to a strengthening of relationships or, certainly, a greater sense of accountability from both.

Let me give you some facts that I also gave last week. It needs to be put in context, because we commend Senator Patrick for promoting this motion. China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner, export market and import source, representing 24 per cent of total trade, with a value of $183 billion. Australia is China's sixth-largest trading partner and fifth-biggest supplier of imports. Twenty-five per cent—that's one-quarter—of Australia's manufactured imports come from China, and 13 per cent of Australia's exports include thermal coal to China. A free trade agreement was signed between the two countries in June 2015.

More recently, China has embarked on the One Belt, One Road initiative. This is a Chinese economic and strategic agenda where Eurasia, Africa and Oceania are more closely tied along two routes, one land and one maritime. On the one hand, those who support this initiative say that it facilitates the development of infrastructure and economic aid to needy economies. On the other hand, it can be said to facilitate Chinese economic and strategic domination of smaller countries on the two routes. For Australia, we see the growing Chinese involvement in projects from northern Australia to Tasmania, all providing little benefit to Australia yet with substantial benefits to China. Other examples of Chinese involvement have been in the funding and support of local academic conferences and seminars.

One of the ongoing issues of mutual concern relates to regional and global security. The growing tensions between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China in terms of the imposition of trade tariffs is placing Australia in a challenging position given the importance of Australia's relationships with both of these nations. Similarly, China's growing military influence in the South China Sea remains of concern, as we've already heard, to the United States of America, and that means necessarily to Australia as an established ally of America. Regionally, China is having a growing influence by funding infrastructure projects for some of the Pacific island countries and Papua New Guinea, and then we fork out tonnes of cash to try to compete. China runs the risk of changing the dynamic between Australia and our near neighbours. This needs to be understood.

Australia is a destination of choice for many Chinese students to further their education in an Australian academic institution. In 2018 there were more than 166,000 enrolments of Chinese students in Australia, representing 43.3 per cent of the total international cohort, not far under half. A concern noted in some Australian universities is the potential dependence generated by full-fee-paying international students and the overall money pool available to the university budget. One university—I think it's Monash, from memory—is concerned that on one of its campuses control of the student union could be taken over by Chinese students. Nonetheless, the concern is that, should those numbers suddenly diminish, some of the universities may be left destitute, and that will hurt Australians.

The unfettered Chinese development of five research bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory is of growing concern to many of us at a time when Australian investment in its three bases in that territory has been considered relatively conservative by comparison. Given the potential for military and strategic use of these bases by China and the potential for resource extraction at some future time, there is need to consider this factor when examining our relationships with China.

Australia is a favourite destination for Chinese tourists, and this is shown by recent numbers. More than 1.3 million Chinese tourists visited Australia last year, representing 15 per cent—that's one-seventh—of total visitors. That is a clear positive for our country. At the same time, there is a growing boom of tourists heading for China, which is welcoming tourists from around the world, including 700,000 of them from Australia.

Another issue is human rights. That's an issue where China and Australia have competing views. We must surely understand each other there; that's critical. Australia is a democracy and a signatory to many international agreements that preserve basic human rights. China, though, is a totalitarian republic following a communist regime that is very rigid, with very little room to question the state and limited rights for the individual. One only has to turn on the news and watch the demonstrations for freedom happening in Hong Kong to see how that goes down. Many Australians remember the events of Tiananmen Square. The detention of those whose views differ from those of the regime is a continuing disgrace and worthy of further review. Currently, Australian writer Yang Hengjun is being detained in China in harsh conditions and has been charged with spying. He has published works promoting democracy and seems to be now paying the penalty for having a different point of view. He has been denied access to his lawyers and family. I will quote from an article written by Arthur Moses in the Weekend Australian. He happens to be President of the Law Council of Australia. He says of Chinese Australian writer Yang Hengjun, an Australian citizen:

After travelling to China with his family, the democracy advocate and academic was detained in January on the allegation of being suspected of "endangering national security"—

an Australian held on suspicion.

Since then he has been held in harsh conditions without charge, with limited access to consular assistance. He has not been permitted to talk to his lawyers or see his family.

That's how they're treating an Australian citizen.

His lawyers do not know the particulars of the allegations against him …

Yet, as I said, Yang is an Australian citizen.

Being a true friend and ally—

and this is important—

of any nation means when issues arise in a foreign justice system affecting Australian citizens, we are obliged to speak up.

…   …   …

As a blogger, he has written thousands of articles promoting the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and built up a large following in China.

These go to the fundamentals on which our Constitution is based, the Magna Carta and subsequent documents. Important in that is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, but that's not the way China runs. Yang and detainees like him, as Moses says, must be treated humanely in a fair and transparent manner. This is what I was getting to. Near the end of his article, Mr Moses says:

But it is the rule of law that most strongly drives economic performance.

Our economic future and China's economic future depend upon the rule of law in China to a large extent. That is what we need to protect and that is why we need an inquiry into our relationship.

I will point out some other things that I raised last week. Andrew Hastie, a well-known Liberal MP from Western Australia, recently made some strong comments about the Chinese relationship and needing to hold China accountable. Labor senator Kimberly Kitching was on the record as co-sponsor of this motion from Senator Patrick, but it seems her name dropped off. That seems to be under Labor pressure. At the moment we see the New South Wales ICAC going through all kinds of hijinks while investigating Labor. There are questions there. And then we have questions over Liberal Party interactions with Chinese influencers, and that was before the latest Liu affair, which raises more questions.

Why hasn't the government taken more action to investigate these connections? Gladys Liu was known for raising huge amounts of cash for the Liberal Party, and now the people of Australia need to know what it would take for the Liberal Party to return any money she raised due to her links to the Chinese Communist Party. How bad does it have to get before the government asks direct questions about Ms Liu? People—not just journalists—are concerned about China and its influence over our politicians, over our politics, over our land, over our political system and over our essential services.

'Why was her name on a council letter?' people have asked. Why did she avoid answering simple questions? Will the Liberal Party investigate? Will it have an independent investigation? To what extent is Chinese influence controlled through donations to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party? What are her connections with the Chinese Communist Party? Is she a mouthpiece for them in this country? She couldn't recall if links of up to 12 years with two organisations connected with the Chinese Communist Party existed. This is pretty vague. She refused to state whether China's claims over the South China Sea are unlawful. These are just some notes that I wrote over a couple of days on the weekend: memory issues; vagueness; donations of a million dollars over many years, it seems in the paper; and a refusal to say that the Chinese dictatorship is in fact a dictatorship. And was she a member of various organisations connected with the Chinese Communist Party?

The Liberal Party won't investigate and the Labor Party runs from ICAC in New South Wales, but the people are focused on issues like landownership. Why is China allowed to buy so much land in this country, buy companies in this country and buy ports in this country? And, speaking of ports, about the port of Darwin: why did Andrew Robb, as Minister for Trade, walk straight out of the ministry and into an $880,000-a-year job with his Chinese masters? Clive Hamilton—and you rarely hear me quoting Clive Hamilton—has recently come out very strongly, exposing a number of questions about our Chinese relationship.

China is an important trading partner and it's of important military interest. It raises security questions about our parliament, about espionage and especially about human rights. It is a complex relationship, and I think Senator Patrick did a good job in explaining that. The government has three fundamental roles: protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom. All three need to be considered in this relationship with China: protecting life—human rights; protecting property—our property in Australia; and protecting freedom from influence, quite likely in this building and in our political institutions at the state and federal levels.

One Nation supports the call for such an inquiry into the relationship into a nation exerting powerful influences on our nation, with the potential for far more powerful influence in our nation's future. We support this motion for the people of Australia and we look forward very much to seeing whether the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have the integrity and the courage to support this motion.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Jacqui Lambie Network supports this motion. Obviously, I've always had a lot to say about this in the past. I don't have a speech tonight, so I'm just going to say from the Australian people out there—and there are millions of them—that right now they feel like the government has put a whole heap of duct tape over their mouths and that, instead of being a democracy, they're being sent in the opposite direction. They are now getting a dictatorship.

This is not what Aussie values are about. We have never been ashamed. We have never had fear to ask questions of others. This is not who we are. They want questions on why you're selling out our assets to the Chinese. We want questions on why you're selling our prime ag to the Chinese. We want to know why you're selling off our ports. We want to know why our infrastructure is being bought out. We want to know why our universities are being infiltrated. Let's be honest. I don't think it is a lot to ask. You owe millions of Australians some answers on this. If you think doing this is going to keep things calm, you're actually instigating more fear out there among Australians. That's exactly what you're doing out there.

Let's be honest. I've been saying it for years and it's getting worse. I've been on the sidelines for 20 months, and all I hear is how much more they're going to spend with their cheque books to buy us up. You owe it to them to answer this. By putting duct tape on us, saying, 'Please don't do that, we might offend them,' you have millions of Australians right now feeling terribly offended by you not doing this. You need to ask yourself where your allegiances belong. That is the question you need to ask. There are millions of Australians out there that want answers. This is not the way to combat this. This will not work well. You're doing this very, very, very wrongly. You owe it to every Australian. So I'm asking you and I'm asking the Labor Party to support this, because every Australian out there wants some answers. By not giving them any, we'll only make their concerns and fears even greater. Surely that's common sense.

For goodness sake, let this inquiry go ahead. One way or another we'll find a way around it and we'll keep coming. I don't think that's a smart idea either. Let's be transparent. Let's be fair, so everybody else is out there finding the answers. That's all they're asking for. But right now, when you get suspicions and there's money showing up in paper bags and stuff going on in our universities with our kids, that fear factor just lifted by about 20,000 bloody degrees, I can tell you, where I'm standing. It is concerning. Australians out there want to be assured that they have got control of the situation, not the communist Chinese—which looks like exactly what we're giving them right now. This is not the way to go ahead with things. There is no room for fear here, not ever. We are a democracy. We live by our freedoms and we love them. We have no problem in saying something when we want to say it. So why have things changed? This is not on.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie. I remind you about parliamentary language.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that in Senator Patrick's contribution he was again critical of the Labor Party. In my contribution I would like to put forward exactly what the Labor Party's position is, and not a position that is put forward by Senator Patrick to fit his own view. Last week Senator Gallagher gave a comprehensive explanation of why Labor is not supporting this referral. Nothing has changed since then for us. What has changed is that Senator Patrick voted against a motion that would have ensured that the Morrison government explained why it ignored reported warnings from the security agency in relation to Ms Liu and her links to the Chinese Communist Party. Senator Lambie, the Greens and One Nation all voted in favour of this scrutiny. Senator Patrick, on the other hand, joined forces with Senator Bernardi to shield the government. This is despite his Centre Alliance colleague, the member for Mayo, supporting Labor's efforts for appropriate scrutiny in the House of Representatives. This has been a major dent in Senator Patrick's credibility on matters relating to China, and has created the impression that he's more interested in political hits on Labor than the national interest. It is clear that there is a strong interest in the management of Australia's relationship with China.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, on a point of order?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm raising a point of order so that the Senate chamber is not misled. I voted against a motion to suspend standing orders, and I indicated at the time—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the point of order?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want the senator misleading the Senate.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds like a debating point, Senator Patrick.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start again. It's clear that there is a strong interest in the management of Australia's relationship with China among members and senators. There have been many expressions of this interest, including the proposal from Senator Patrick for an inquiry. Labor notes the government will not be supporting an inquiry. We believe that the call for an inquiry reflects the broader desire among parliamentarians to be better briefed on the points of convergence and the points of divergence in Australia's relationship with China.

China is, and will continue to be, of great importance to Australia, the region and the world. The key question for Australia is: how do we best make the relationship work for us? It is reasonable and appropriate for parliamentarians to want assurance that our national interest is being served, and access to quality briefing is critical in constructive parliamentary engagement. Last month, in the interests of a calm and mature debate and the hope of continuing a bipartisan approach to the relationship, Labor wrote to the foreign minister requesting that relevant agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of National Intelligence provide detailed and comprehensive briefing for parliamentarians on Australia's relationship with China. Labor continues to believe this is the best approach, regardless of Senator Patrick's conspiracy theories. Labor is also establishing caucus processes for engagement on this subject, because Labor believes it is the job of all parliamentarians to protect and advance its national interest. The national interest is best served by a bipartisan approach to the relationship. This does not mean uncritical support for the government's approach; rather, it means having a sensible, calm and mature discussion without seeking to exploit complexities in the China relationship for political advantage.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions. I might work backwards through the contributions that were made, starting off with that of the Labor Party. I note on the weekend that the Labor Party issued a press release suggesting that I wasn't going to support a motion requiring Senator Cormann to come into the chamber and give an explanation, and that is not the case. As I stated when that motion was put, Centre Alliance would support the motion but we would not support the disruption of the very important business of the Senate, so we refused to support a motion to suspend standing orders.

Here we are; we're several months into this parliament and Labor are building up. They've started off by challenging a lone crossbencher on their failure to support a procedural motion. Let's predict what's going to happen from here. In about a year's time you might be able to stand up and deal with me on a substantive motion. In about two years time you might even be able to take on the government. That's the place you're in right now. You're in disarray.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, what a load of rubbish!

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we could talk about things like ISDS. You backflipped on that. We can talk about you standing up and saying you're not going to support tax cuts, and then you come into this chamber and capitulate. We can talk about the TEO bill, where you stood and said, 'I don't want to support that, because it is wrong in law.' We were going to stand by you. Two days before the vote, you capitulated. It was the same thing with the vegan bill last week. You knew there needed to be changes but you didn't do anything. You announced upfront: 'We're going to move some amendments. If they get up, all well and good. If it goes back to the House and it gets rejected, we're going to support it anyway.' The biggest decision the Labor Party makes at this point in time is: at what point are we going to capitulate? That's where you're at.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, on a point of order?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the speaker direct his comments through the chair.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not concerned that he's not doing that, thank you. I'll overrule that. Senator Patrick, continue.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. So, the contribution from the Labor Party was that they said that they wanted to get briefings. The government has said they're not going to give briefings. So what are you going to do? Are you going to run a private inquiry where people can contribute privately without privilege and people don't get to make submissions? Are you going to call for submissions? Is the Labor Party going to put out a call for submissions for their private deliberations on this really important issue? That's the disappointing thing—you're supposed to be a party of government. You're supposed to take these matters seriously. We're calling for an inquiry into the most important relationship this country will have over the next two, three, four decades. Long gone is the situation where we had a strategic partner and an economic partner that was the UK and the US. That has gone, and we now need to consider properly this particular relationship. And you have failed to do this. This is another failure of the Labor Party. But do you know what? Once again, I live in hope that in about two years time you might have built up the courage to take on the government in this chamber and not direct your concerns at a crossbencher. In some sense I'm flattered, but it is really not inspiring.

I'll go to the government's response. Sorry, Senator Dunnyham, everyone likes you in this chamber. I've never heard anyone speak ill of you, but I have to say your performance tonight—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that Senator Patrick withdraw the name 'Senator Dunnyham'. That's what he called him.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You prefer that his name be better pronounced?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard Dunnyham's a nice guy.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure Senator Patrick will find that very helpful. Please continue.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

What I will say is that I always enjoy listening to him, but unfortunately the speech tonight was perfunctory talking about complexities, talking about things that we already know and not really addressing why it is the government does not want to support this motion. I find that quite disappointing.

I'll now go to Senator Bernardi—a crossbench contribution. I thank the crossbench for their contribution tonight. They raised a range of issues that do need to be looked at by way of this inquiry. Things like foreign students. We welcome foreign students. We welcome students from China. We welcome trade relationships. We welcome the tourism that comes from China and, indeed, goes both ways. That's all very good stuff, and part of what an inquiry might do is identify areas where we could improve things. I do note that Senator Bernardi sort of said that there is a real potential if things go bad with the Chinese relationship that it could harm our economy. But the point is, as he said, he doesn't know. And we need to know. He used the term 'flying blind'. That's how we're operating here.

I note Senator Lambie. She always uses slightly more colourful language. She's talking about 'duct tape over the mouths'. That's what's happening here. She's always got that sort of ocker expression that connects well with the regular Australian public, and you should be listening to what she's saying. What she's saying is that Australians want to know about our relationship. There's no-one out there saying, 'Let's not have a relationship.' We're saying: 'Let's know about this relationship. Let's understand how to maximise it and where we need to be cautious.' That's what Australians would like to know.

There was an issue raised today where a Chinese company, Mengniu Dairy, is going to buy Bellamy's, a dairy company that deals with baby formula. Interestingly, in the relationship between the two countries, Bellamy's has had difficulties in exporting their goods to China over the last year or so, and what that's done is suppressed the share price down to a point where we now see a Chinese owned company that has connections back to the state making a takeover offer. I'm not suggesting anything here, other than: we should take a look at these things. We should take a careful look at all of these things. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as though we're going to have the opportunity, because we've got the Labor Party saying no, despite their particular pathway to examine the relationship being cut off at the knees by Senator Payne's statement in question time last week. And we know the government's not going to support it.

Now, I know there are people in government who do support this. I'm just looking. I won't verbal Senator Brockman, but I've watched with interest as he has shown intense interest in the discussion that's taken place in the chamber tonight. But, seriously, we've had Senator Fierravanti-Wells in the media suggesting that there ought to be an inquiry into China. She's a former minister in the foreign affairs space, so that's not insignificant. We know that Andrew Hastie, as was suggested by Senator Roberts, is quite interested in doing an inquiry. We also know that Senator Kitching is interested in doing an inquiry. But, most importantly, the Australian public want to examine this relationship. That's the most important thing, and this chamber should recognise that. I urge everyone to vote for this most important inquiry.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.