Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:23): On 1 January 1901, a Tuesday, the Commonwealth of Australia came into official existence. What happened on that day was six British colonies united to form a single independent nation. That was, in the history of this country, a red-letter day, a very important day.

The Parliamentary Education Office tells us this, under the heading 'The Federation of Australia': Australia's Federation came about through a process of deliberation, consultation and debate. They are important things. It goes on: The colonies were almost like 6 separate countries.

For example, each had its own government and laws, its own defence force, issued its own stamps and collected tariffs—taxes—on goods that crossed its borders. The colonies had even built railways using different gauges, which complicated the transport of people and goods across the continent. Goodness knows, we're still suffering the effects of some of those things.

Statehood is still alive and well even though we are very much 125-plus years on. But this bill, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026, is a good piece of legislation in as much as our states need to know that, when it comes to foreign affairs, foreign relations, international treaties and the like, it is the Commonwealth, Canberra, the federal government that should and must have the most say so.

Australia needs not many but a single coherent foreign policy, including when the territories and states, councils and public universities are engaging internationally, not just for Australia's sake but for their sake. Most engagements that are conducted are overwhelmingly positive, but there can be problems when and where foreign actors perhaps maliciously, deliberately or otherwise influence Australian institutions in ways that go against our national interest.

And we can't have that. I heard the member for Solomon say sensible governments decide on this policy, and he's quite right. It was the former coalition government which established the Foreign Arrangements Scheme in 2020.

The Commonwealth does need visibility of significant foreign arrangements and the means to act where Australia's interests are threatened. We live in a very volatile world. We live in a world in which foreign actors, malicious or otherwise, can very much interfere in the good governance of our country, Australia.

We all well remember the Victorian Labor government signing up to China's Belt and Road Initiative. At the time the Commonwealth had limited ability to ensure that that agreement aligned with Australia's foreign policy. Do you think that mattered to the then premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews?

Do you think he cared? Not a jot; no way. But the Commonwealth coalition fixed that gap.

The scheme was established, and Victoria's BRI agreement was subsequently cancelled in April 2021. That hasn't stopped Mr Andrews going overseas and cosying up with his buddies in Beijing. It hasn't stopped a statue being proposed, made of bronze, in his honour on or near Spring Street.

But since then, since the Commonwealth stepped in, as it rightly should have, more than 18,000 arrangements have been notified and more than 14,000 have been found to fall within the scheme. The scheme has given the Commonwealth proper and justifiable oversight over foreign arrangements that simply didn't exist before. It didn't happen before the coalition put in place the Foreign Arrangements Scheme in 2020.

Five years of operation have shown that the scheme could be better targeted, and this is why the government is now doing what it is doing with this bill. Too much effort has been spent processing arrangements that posed little or no genuine risk to our foreign interest. Around 92 per cent of core arrangements and about three-quarters of what would be non-core arrangements did not require complicated, complex and intricate oversight or assessment.

Many were routine, including student credit transfers, fair enough; sister city arrangements, okay; ordinary educational engagement, fair enough. But, over those not covered by what I just mentioned, the Commonwealth must have jurisdiction. You can't have a premier, such as Mr Andrews, running off on a folly, pretending to be Australia's spokesperson and representative and making arrangements to suit himself or his own state.

That is why Victoria's dealings with the BRI were brought into question. That is why, ultimately, the deal was cancelled. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Fernando ): It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted.

The member for Riverina will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 15:59