Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for agreeing to deal with the message today after my absence yesterday. Can I first go to the objectives of the bill. I would make the point that I have, on behalf of the Labor Party, consistently indicated, from the day the bill was announced without notice to us and without any indication to us, that we would back the objectives of the bill. The substantive bill, the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, has actually already passed the parliament with the opposition's support. There seems to be a bit of confusion amongst the minister's colleagues about the status of the substantive bill. I think this is the first time I've seen a government actually claim one of its bills hasn't passed the parliament when it has. I do question the Morrison government's motivation for that misleading of some in the public arena in suggesting that the bill hasn't passed. The scheme has passed and the minister has the power. The question here is whether or not there should be some oversight of the minister's decisions. We think that view was reflected in the sensible substantive amendments that Labor moved and in our support of the amendment moved by Senator Patrick. The application of the AD(JR) Act to a decision under this bill would really do no more than provide a clearer pathway for organisations that wanted to review the legality of a decision by the government. It makes things clearer and simpler, and that's really it.

I do want to go to the point of how the government and this minister have chosen to deal with this bill. We have repeatedly offered to engage with the government in relation to this bill. To my mind—and this is what I would say to this chamber—this is one of the problems with the way in which this government seeks to handle certain issues of foreign policy. It doesn't know how to be bipartisan in the national interest. We get the announcement; we make clear our position; the minister doesn't talk to the opposition. On this legislation we invited conversations. The minister still hasn't spoken to me—not once. We provided the government with our amendments ahead of them being circulated. We provided the government again with a letter after the amendments were voted on here in the chamber saying: 'If you've got an issue, come back to us. We'd like to discuss a way through.' I got a text from the minister and some staff consultation which suggested it was simply a matter of principle. Can I just say that I think a minister in this portfolio ought to have the political maturity to engage the other party of government when it comes to these sorts of pieces of legislation. I register my disappointment that the minister consistently refused to do so. I find it mystifying, frankly.

I understand that Senator Lambie is changing her position. Senator Lambie is always very upfront with me. I knew we had her last time and now I know we don't have her, so thank you to her. She's not one of those in this place about whom you die wondering. I appreciate her clarity with me around that.

I think it's pretty clear the Senate won't be insisting on this. Labor will continue to insist on the amendment, given what we've previously indicated and the failure by government, really, to offer any substantial reason as to why this is such a dreadful proposition to have in the application of the act. So we will continue to support the amendment that Senator Patrick moved, which was identical to an opposition amendment, to ensure the bill was not excluded.