Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 8:24:32 to 9:08:18
Review of outstanding Senate committee reports and diplomatic developments including the Indonesia security treaty and Palestinian Authority undertakings.
Topics: Orders for documents, International law, National security
Speakers: Hon Penny Wong, Hon Michaelia Cash, Andrew Walter, David Pocock, Dr Lauren Bain, Blair Exell, Ellie Whiteaker, Elly Lawson, Joanna Abhayaratna, Karen Grogan, Senator Dave Sharma
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I've got some questions about the awarding of Australian sports medals. >> If anyone can help me with that.
>> I'm really hoping someone's moving
>> Australian sports medals. I I've had a a >> No, my understanding is it's through the >> Anyway, I'll I'll explain the problem and then maybe we can >> thank you. >> So, I've had a veterans advocate raise with me um an issue relating to the awarding of Australian sports medals for veterans who participate in the Invictus Games. there was some um amendments were made to regulations that enable athletes who participate in the Invictus Games um from 2018 to receive these medals. The concerns been raised that the Invictus Invictus Games have been going since 2014. So there's about 80 veterans who have competed um since you're representing Australia at the Invictus Games and haven't been able to receive a medal and was just interested if this has been raised with uh PMC and whether or not there's a a way that the regulations could be updated to start at the start of the Invictus games in 2014.
>> Senator, we're not sorry. So, so >> I was going to say not not aware it's been raised with us directly and to my understanding it's a matter of veterans affairs it looks invict there might be a role there for office of support as well but >> um I don't I was in that office for a time or and I don't recall that coming up there so I think it is >> um department of veterans affairs but
>> sure
>> senator can I clarify yeah but just so I'm clear the request is can the government look at retrospective application of a change made in 2018. So
my no my understanding is that there was already a retrospective action um but they went to 2018 not 2014
>> right
>> and so you've just
>> so when was the when was the decision made that you're referencing was that under our government or the previous
>> I I assume it was under your >> your governments and the yeah the Australian sports medal is listed on the PMC as well as the DVA one. So I'll as well as defense
>> it sounds from some advice I've got it sounds like it might have been done in 2020 the last amendment >> But again it's it's I think um department of veterans affairs is the best place to start.
and then Minister, I just had some questions about the government responding to Senate Committee reports. >> Um, and I mean I I take it you agree that the Senate is a vital institution in our democracy. Um, and I'm concerned that when you look at the um the numbers, the president's report shows that 155 Senate committee reports have not been responded to. >> Yeah. >> By the government and some are more than 3 years old now
>> and some of them are not our government. So um yes, I do think the S Senate is a it's a second ch it's a we have a biccameal um um parliament uh and I've been I sought to come into this chamber because I uh believe very passionately in the importance of uh the work that the Senate does. I also think there are conventions and practices which uh are important and you know I have an issue senator with how many OPDS you use as a first you and your colleague use as a first uh protocol when as someone who spent a long time in opposition we never used we did not use it as the first protocol we actually tried to find out the information in other ways and used it as a uh as more of a it's not a last resort. Certainly something that after other avenues have been exhausted because I think it lessens the weight of them and and makes it very difficult. Um uh I do I am aware of the Senate the issue of Senate committee reports and in fact when we first came to government I raise the point uh that there were multiple Senate committee reports that had never been responsible including going back a long way um and asked that we at least in relation to those where you know we weren't in a position to respond because they might have been for the Abbott or the Turnbull or the Morrison government that we as a matter of courtesy explain that to the Senate. I can say as a minister a Senate minister I also look pretty carefully at um what the government response is on reports for which I have portfolio responsibility. Um, I'll have a look at well I'll ask that the uh the numbers that um you've outlined I we will have a look at those and see how many of those uh a relate to previous governments but b where those responses are. I think that the usual processes would indicate that there's a report which I assume you're reading from which is tabled about where the Senate response is. Sorry, apologies. Where the government response to the Senate committee report
>> And why isn't the government responding to Senate committee reports?
>> Well, we are. It's not correct to say
>> There's 155 that you haven't.
>> We have [clears throat] responded to many and I can say that as someone who's ticked off on responses. Um, but you know, we can provide you with more information um on on notice. I don't know how many of those how many of those are in our term of government. Senator,
>> I might ask the
>> Well, you've got it in front of you.
>> I don't know.
>> This is the information. How many of them are Well, you know, >> if it's uh Mr. Abbott's government is Mr. Morrison's government, Mr. Turnbull's
>> So, 155 are in this term of government.
>> This term?
>> Well, government.
>> That wouldn't be right. Four years. I I don't know. Well, I I want to look at that.
>> That's from the president's. I'm not
sure that's right.
>> Well, you ask me to tell you and then when I tell you.
>> Well, 155 Senate reports since 2022. >> That just seems a lot.
>> Well, I might ask the I might ask someone in PMC. So, you must track this stuff. Do you track Do you track Senate reports centrally in PMC?
uh Senator um we do uh assist with that through the parliamentary liaison offices who are located one located in the senate one in the house um and as the minister has averted to we did go through a process um about 12 18 months ago of going through and tidying up um a lot of the outstanding response including from former governments or former terms of parliament. Um and uh this is something the prime minister takes seriously and we're looking at ways in which we can uh improve uh our approaches to this. Uh so I'll take that the your specific questions on notice but it is something that
>> we do track it centrally.
>> We yes we help with the assistance as said we assist with preparation of those reports. Um and you know it's something that the prime minister and his office is very conscious of. So we are looking at uh options to improve that response.
>> And have you given ministers um advice of the Senate standing orders for them to provide advice to the Senate once they have missed the
>> uh that that that's not our role to advise uh ministers of the standing orders as such. >> Um and that that can occur through parliamentary departments. But um obviously the the the government is mindful of of those those responses and we are are looking at seeing how we can
>> someone else's job. Whose whose job is
>> Well, I'm sorry. I'm just saying that in terms of advising on the process of the parliament. Yes, you can come to one of the parliamentary offices if you're a minister, but also um obviously there's the uh tableabling office and other offices within the parliament that can
you're tracking them centrally and when you see that see that they're overdue you don't actually inform that minister and say hey this needs a response.
>> As I said we have gone this government has gone through processes where we try and tidy up the books and we're looking at other options at the moment.
>> Senator I've just downloaded and I can barely read it because my glasses are not this good but the December 2025 president's report which includes all of these report. The first one is a certain maritime incident. I remember this one that date was that reported on in December it's October 2002. Then there is the law enforcement integrity one 20 uh 2016. So I'm just making the point and there's another one indefinite detention of people with cognitive psychiatric impairment in Australia November 2016. um the five the uh constitute the joint select committee in relation to recognition of a originalinal touristra islander people 2014 and 2015 and 2018. So I wouldn't make the point I'm not in the Senate select committee into public interest immunity claims 2021. So I'm making the point I uh it is reasonable to request that ministers the government respond to Senate reports. They do take some time. I think it's 3 months is what is expected. I can say to you in terms of whole of government consultation on many of the reports that takes longer to be frank, but I think the list that you've described does include reports which are older as as Senate as Mr. Walter said we did try and clean a lot of that up over the last few years because there were many reports that the Abbott Morrison Turnull governments had not responded to. Uh and it seemed to me uh and others that we should at least respond in even if it was only to say you know given the the change in the government's position because of the change in government that we will not be
who ultimately decides to delay a government uh response of Senate committee report? Is it the portfolio minister? Uh the PM
>> no
>> PMNC.
>> It's not usually a decision to delay. >> So I think it's more Sorry.
>> Well, I think you're going to go exactly where I was going. the portfolio administer is is ultimately responsible for the prepar for for making sure that a report is provided to the parliament a response
>> then why there's such sort of routines why is it so routine for it to be so delayed the response
>> well I think the minister's actually gone to some of the reasons why there might be a delay I mean leaving aside for the moment um reports from previous governments uh some uh reports are quite complex and they go to multiple departments uh or multiple portfolio responsibilities. They do require consultation and consideration. Um they might raise um the response itself might require decisions from government. Uh and all those things unfortunately can take time in in complex policy areas.
>> I would also note that quite a number of these reports have had interim responses. >> Uh which is also something I think is um I think it's a courteous thing for the executive to do. So if you've got a recommendation uh that you know is going to there's a number of things which would have to occur before you can respond to it whatever that that you at least provide an interim response which says we can do this we can't do this and we're working on this. So I think you'll find quite a lot of these if this report of the 20 2025 is correct quite a number of these have had interim responses
>> and just going to that the the president's report it was that the Albanese government hasn't responded to 155 within the 3 month
>> within the 3 months there no that's I think that's correct >> that I mean I think I think the 3 months to be honest um is ambitious for a lot of the the sort of reports we have today. Sure.
>> I'm going to need to rotate the call. You've got >> if you got a last
>> Yeah. Last last one or two. has PMNC um told any ministers or departments to not um I guess submit their response.
>> Uh that wouldn't be our role. So, not that I I mean I can't say that definitively, but I I would be extremely doubtful that wouldn't be our role to tell the minister not to submit a
report. >> Maybe just on notice then if you're happy to to take that course. >> Um and what what steps are you taking other than tracking them of trying to improve this?
>> So, Senator, I've taken that on notice. We are in that that process at the moment and hopefully I'll be able to come back to you with a bit more information.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
>> Thanks very much. Uh we will go to Senator Cash.
>> Uh thank you. If I could just very briefly go to the appointment of the royal commissioner Virginia Bell. Uh just in terms of general first um in terms of the appointment of a royal commissioner is there a specific process a government has to go through or is it at the sole discretion of the
>> Uh so the formal process for appointing a royal commissioner is is through the letters patent. The letters patent as you might notice are actually addressed to the royal commissioner. Uh so that that is the formal process goes to the executive. So govern take one step back.
My apologies Mr. Walter in terms of actually choosing who the royal commissioner is going to be. Is that purely at the government's discretion or is there a process that needs to be gone through for example vetting of other candidates etc.
uh there's no I I don't think I' I'd say there's not a a formal process as such. Uh however um you know there's a a certain range of candidates who are obviously considered for these kinds of uh roles. Uh and uh obviously a former high court judge is eminently qualified uh to perform this kind of role. Despite
what Minister Burke may have said on the 24th of December, the best way to act with absolute urgency is not to have something shared by a retired judge. It's something it's to have something shared by a national security expert. But they were comments by Minister Burke. Um Mr. Walters, on what date was Prime Minister and Cabinet first instructed to begin vetting candidates for a Royal Commissioner to head the Royal Commission on Anti-Semitism?
Um I don't think the the term vetting is one that I would use. Well, it's not one I would use. Um there was uh there were discussions well from prime minister and cabinet's perspective there were discussions from around the the 4th of January about uh who the commissioner might be. Uh but Miss Bell emerged very quickly as the preferred candidate assuming that she would accept the role. Uh she was in fact overseas at the time. So contact was made with her to see whether she would um accept the role and she applied she would. Uh and so we proceeded from
>> Um did prime minister and cabinet provide a formal short list of say three candidates to the prime minister's
of other names that were provided to the prime minister's office. Um, but I I think that's as far as I could go.
>> Sorry, you dropped out there.
>> Oh, sorry. I think that's as far as I could go. We we provided a couple of >> which included Miss Bell, of course.
>> Oh, right. Yes. Okay, that was my next question. Exactly. Um, so when you say a couple of names, does that mean two names, three names?
>> I' I'd actually have to take it on notes. a fours in my head, but I'll take it on notice.
>> That's fine. And um thank you very much. And on what date were those names
>> Uh again, I'll take that on notes. I just can't recall it. It would have been
>> So the discussions began on the 4th. So
>> yeah, around then.
>> Yeah, that week. Okay. Um, I in terms of the names that were provided, and obviously not asking what those names were, how many of the candidates had specific documented expertise in counterterrorism or anti-semitic radicalization?
>> Uh, Senator, I'd have to take that on
>> Thank you. Um was there a selection criteria used to evaluate the suitability of the royal commissioner given the nature of the
>> Uh it was ultimately a matter for the prime minister and the government to consider. Um we were looking for eminently qualified people. We wanted someone ideally who had a criminal law background because of uh the fact that there is likely to be a prosecution that will occur at the same time as the Royal Commission. So we needed somebody who will be able to navigate uh the complexities of that. >> Uh and Miss Bell has a background in criminal law. That was her special specialtity as a as a barristister. Um so um that that was something we were looking for uh in particular. But I I don't think it's not so much formal criteria. It's it's that they have an appropriate eminence that we think they'll be able to deliver within the desired time frames. Uh mention Mr. Burke's comments. Um and then uh the ability to navigate some of those uh those particular challenges.
>> just trying to think how many royal commissions has Miss Bill done?
>> she well she hasn't been a royal commissioner but I do think she might have been council assisting in a New South Wales royal
>> commissioner. She was yeah that's um ju just in terms of a comment that you made just checking that Miss Bell obviously had um the availability to do that. Um did PMC assess the risk of appointment fatigue given that she has previously led high-profile inquiries?
Uh, no, that wasn't something that we turned our mind to. I think, uh, Miss Bell would have absolutely let us know if she didn't think she was, uh, uh, you know, ready and able to do the role.
>> Okay. Um, just in terms of the royal commissioner and her role, does Commissioner Bell have the power to compel Mr. Richardson to hand over his evidence or is this purely a voluntary arrangement? How how is that actually going to work?
>> So Mr. Richardson has been employed by the Royal Commission. He is working for the Royal Commission. He acts under the direction of
>> the commissioner.
>> Under the commissioner, the direction of the commissioner. >> Um so it's not a case of compelling. Uh he is now part of the royal commission. for uh completeness min Mr. Richardson have been reaching out to departments asking for information. I can tell you that that information has has been uh requested through notices to produce by the Royal Commission. So there's no risk of information falling through the gaps.
>> Can you can you just explain that to me?
So under the royal commission's act um uh the royal commission has or the royal commissioner has the power to issue notices to produce
>> yes
>> uh to anyone uh who might hold relevant information. >> Uh Mr. Richardson >> when he was doing his independent review had identified information that he >> wanted provided by departments on a kind of confidential basis.
>> Yes.
>> That information has just has now been sorted under a formal of the Royal
Commission because he's now under as >> So at this point in time, he has literally so there was announcement of the Royal Commission on January the 8th. On the 7th, the PM announced Dennis Richardson would lead the review into the intelligence agencies. Has that literally gone and done that now? Has it? So he's now working as part of the Royal Commission but still leading the review of the intelligence agencies. So,
so he is formerly part of the commission uh and he is assisting the commissioner with those parts of the letters patient.
>> Okay. Um just in terms of the appointment of the royal commissioner herself um before the prime minister announced
Ms. Bill's appointment just clarif Mr. Richardson prior to the decision to have a royal commission had already been announced. So it wasn't the seventh. I think you said the seventh.
>> I said yes. Sorry I did have on January 7th the PM announced Dennis Richardson. He had already been that I'm sorry that's a
>> that's not correct. I think it was December.
>> Yeah, it was December
>> sometime. I can't recall the
>> apologies and thank you.
>> 21st of December.
>> Just in terms of the appointment of um Ms. Bell, um were Jewish community stakeholders consulted in relation to the appointment?
uh my understanding so we we've we earlier took on notice which groups and individuals were consulted and I might take this on notice as well but my understanding is [snorts] yes that did occur through the prime minister's office and the prime minister but I'd have to take that on notice with the other elements
>> so through so yeah okay so this is specifically on Miss Bell and her appointment yeah thank you very much um >> did the prime minister consult the victim's families on who should lead the Royal Commission.
>> Again, I would have to take that on notice.
Could you take on notice then how many stakeholders were consulted in total in relation to Miss Bell's specific >> Did prime minister and cabinet as you um did you consult anybody in relation to the appointment of the royal commissioner?
>> Uh only the attorney general's
department. the attorney general's department. Can I ask when that was?
>> I'll have to take that on notice. It would have been somewhere obviously in that area where we were consulting on the letters paid.
How many PMNC staff were diverted to the National Security Division to manage the emergency standup of the Bell Commission between January 5th and January the 9th? >> Sorry. Could you repeat? How many PMNC staff actually worked on or were diverted to the National Security Division to help stand up the Royal Commission?
>> So, in terms of uh so uh I might need to clarify exactly what you mean in terms of the the what I think of as a standing up of a royal commission, which is finding premises, employing staff, all those kinds of things. The attorney general's department manages that. Uh that is entirely managed by the Attorney General's Department. they appointed you they appoint the official secretary in consultation with uh the royal commissioner uh and then they provide all the support to get it up and going. So those are really questions for the attorney if they if that's what your
>> so what's payment's ongoing role then?
>> Uh really not terribly much now. Um we will of course respond to any notices to produce. um there will be the the commissioner could ask for government submissions and so forth and we would have a role there but it but in terms of the dayto-day operations of the commission that's the attorney general's department that that facilitates and supports that
>> senator one aspect I'd add is there's a um commonal state dynamic here as well so um PMC supports uh the comm state engagement I think the royal commission will have its own specific IDC to use that language age but actually we support that through the the national cabinet mechanisms to ensure there's awareness across the the broader stuff so that is a role for PNC also
>> and just in terms of any cost associated with the royal commission is there an estimated total cost is there a cost that's been spent to date on the establishment of it
>> so um in terms of the anticipated costs Um so over the forward estimates uh the costs are uh $131.1 million and that's all within the attorney general's portfolio. So >> in terms of cost to date and so forth again questions to the attorney
>> the attorney general's department very quickly because I put some questions on >> foreign affairs and they were referred off to this department when we got the answer back. Um, just in terms of the government's announcement of recognizing the Palestinian state, that was announced on the 21st of September 2025. Um, and in a press release on the 11th of August 2025, uh, it was stated that the Australian recognition was contingent on a number of undertakings from the Palestinian Authority. Did we ever get those undertakings in
Uh, Senator Lauren Bane, First Assistant Secretary, International Division. Uh, we'll have to take that one on notice.
>> Okay, that will assist me with a lot of my other questions. Then what's the process from here? So the Australian government's formally recognized a Palestinian state. Uh it was contingent on a number of undertakings from the Palestinian Authority. Um from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's perspective. What is now the process from here to ensure that uh those undertakings are indeed met? The questions on [snorts] notice that we had asked that were referred back to this department uh provide a list of all meetings and or conversations the prime minister has had with President Mahmud since the 1st of January 2024. Are you aware of how many conversations
Uh, Senator, um, I can confirm that the prime minister spoke with the president of the state of Palestine, Mahmud Abbas, on the 4th of August, 2025 and also on the 9th of November, 2023.
>> 9th of November. So, the recognition of Palestinian state was on the 21st of September.
>> I think you said December, Senator
>> September. >> 21st [snorts] of September, 2025. Um and in the press release as I said of the 11th of August um it was stated that it was contingent on a number of undertakings from the Palestinian Authority. So since the 21st of September 2025, can I just confirm there have been no phone calls between the prime minister and Makmas?
>> Uh that's correct Senator.
>> Okay. How is the implementation of the undertakings being monitored?
>> I think it's probably a question for defa Senator.
>> So there's no role um in terms of the department of prime minister and cabinet in monitoring that the undertakings are indeed
Senator, I would I would need to check on the details of that. I think it's a matter for DEFA, but I'm happy to take that on notice.
>> Is there anybody in the department of um prime minister and cabinet who is specifically liazing then with DEFAT in terms of the ability of the Palestinian state to actually deliver on um the undertakings?
Uh Senator, of course, we have uh team members who engage with DEFAT regularly
Okay. And specifically in relation to the deliverables that we have been talking about, the undertakings from the Palestinian Authority.
>> Senator, we're very happy to take your specific question on notice and come back to you.
>> Okay. Can you recall what those
Senator, we don't we don't have that information here, so we will have to come back to you notice.
>> Um, can you does the prime minister know or does the department know of any of the undertakings have been acted upon?
>> Senator, with respect, we've told you it's it's not really fair to put Miss Lawson and and Dr. Barnes uh in this position. They've told you this isn't something this department is dealing with. Um this is appropriately a matter for uh the department of foreign affairs to
>> That actually wasn't my question. My question was was there any awareness? I
know but
>> from the department of cabinet in relation to
>> they they haven't come with the documents associated with that because it's not and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that they would have these are matters that DEFAT would be uh expected to respond to on
>> Have I given any indication that I wasn't happy with them taking something
complain about it before in relation to previous officer, but I'm sure they'll be very happy to take this on.
>> Well, they have and I I've accepted that as the answer. I'm a little surprised. I would have thought that the prime minister would want to know whether or not Mr. Abbas is indeed keeping his uh promises. Uh but I understand that I will have to obviously put the rest of my questions on notice uh because there doesn't appear to be any ability to answer them here and obviously I will follow them up, Senator Wong. Um and I look forward to that. um on Thursday. Just very briefly, has the prime minister received an invitation to join President Trump's Board of Peace in Gaza?
>> Uh Senator, yes. Um that's publicly been announced.
>> Okay. Can I ask when and in what form was the invitation received?
>> I would need to take that on notice,
>> Okay. Um, has a decision been made as to whether or not Australia will indeed join the Board of Peace?
>> Uh, that matter is still under consideration.
>> Under consideration. Uh, and when we say under consideration by the prime minister, by the government
>> uh the the government um is still considering that matter.
>> Okay. Um, do we know for how much longer the government is going to consider that
matter? Uh, Senator, I don't want to preempt any decisions on this matter by the government.
>> Um, has the prime minister spoken to President Trump about the invitation to
>> We'll take that. >> on notice. I mean, look, I think the PM's made clear that the board of peace would be an international treaty with legally binding obligations for Australia. Uh so uh I think it's different to other groupings that we are or commitments that we've entered into recently. Um so hence the careful consideration but obviously we want to keep working constructively with the United States to promote peace, stability and prosperity in our region. We want to continue to work with the US particularly in the context of Orcus and the Quad uh as well as uh the G20. We look forward to that engagement. Um uh and uh
uh thank you chair. I unfortunately have to go to another um committee. Uh Senator McGrath has some questions that
>> we also have a list.
>> Oh, brilliant. Thank you. Uh Senator Whiteaker.
>> Thank you, Chair. Uh I have some questions about uh the prime minister and Minister Wong's visit to Indonesia in recent days. Um, could you tell us a little more about the treaty on common security that the prime minister signed with President PBO and why it's so
>> Dr. B can go through more detail, but as the prime minister has said, there is no country that um uh that is more important to our security and our stability than Indonesia. And you just need to look at history and geography to understand why. Um the treaty that uh was previously in place 30 years ago uh which is in very similar terms uh around the uh consultation uh and um you know treaty on common security uh was obviously previously regarded as a high watermark of our strategic engagement. So it is you know a very it is a momentous step for uh this treaty to be signed. uh and we are very conscious of the import of it but also what it means in terms of the the further work together that we have to do because a treaty uh you know that says we're going to consult each other regularly at senior levels leader and minister um is an invitation for an even deeper strategic partnership with Indonesia which is in both our interests uh and certainly in the interests we believe of the region uh and works alongside the alliance with the with Papa New Guinea in terms of an architecture of um commitments to one another uh that enables us to work for peace and stability in in times which are turbulent. But Dr. B can talk more about the detail.
>> Thanks, Minister. um senator as the minister uh said um this was really a momentous um uh milestone for Australia Indonesia relations um as uh the prime minister said it was a watershed moment uh in our bilateral relations um and that the the treaty will take our defense and security cooperation uh with Indonesia to a new level. Um, I would note that the prime minister also said it is now the strongest relationship we've ever had with Indonesia, a critical partner and friend. Thank you.
>> Thank you. You've mentioned uh just then in your response the defense and security elements. I'm just wondering if you could explain a little bit more about those outcomes that the prime minister announced during the visit.
>> Sure. Um, so Senator, um, the prime minister announced three, um, additional um, defense commitments. One is a commitment for uh to invite an Indonesia sen uh senior officer uh to be uh secundered to the ADF. That's the first time we've ever made that offer to a Southeast Asian partner. Um he also made uh an announcement about our commitment to work with Indonesia to upgrade um some training related infrastructure. Um and uh finally um he announced um a leadership um program for or an expansion of our existing um exchange programs with young defense uh leaders.
>> That's great. Thank you. Um Minister Wong, >> this was clearly a really important visit um and uh for for us um the relationship between our countries and for the region as you've said. I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the visit. You were there over the weekend. Um what would you say the state of the relationship is between our two nations?
>> Well, I think the PM's words, you know, it's never been stronger are right. But I mean, this is the culmination of um a a very great amount of personal engagement first between the president and the prime minister. Uh and you might recall Senator that the first bilateral overseas visit uh this term and last term the prime minister made were to Jakarta. uh then obviously this was something that the prime minister has been engaging with presidento about uh from and since that first visit uh this year sorry last year uh and um obviously um foreign minister Sugiona and I have been engaged in those and in discussions about the form of uh the treaty um you know it I think dem demonstrates a a trust um between principles um and between our nations um that we want to continue to build on. Uh and it reinforces what the prime minister has said so often that fundamentally our security comes from our region. uh and uh we we this is uh about working in our region uh and security also comes from relationships and this is a such an important relationship for Australia and you know this is new ground as Dr. Barnes said in terms of what this treaty envisages and uh what we will do together. So I we are really uh honored uh to uh have been part of this. Uh we're really honored to I know the prime minister was really honored uh um to sign this uh at Estan Medeka with the president uh and we were both uh um very grateful for the hospitality uh and hosting uh as always very gracious by the president and the foreign minister.
>> Thank you minister. Thank you Dr. B.
>> if Senator Sharma,
>> thank you. Just had a follow-up question on that treaty. So, how does it compare to the Lombok treaty of 2006?
>> Well, we in fact Lombok is referenced uh in Do you have the treaty here? We referenced it in the beginning in the recitations at the front of the treaty uh for obvious reasons. I mean territorial integrity uh um and respecting and reaffirming Lombok was a central part of of the discussions. I think you know what is different in this is um obviously they deal with slightly different issues but the the the the commitment to consult at both leader and ministerial level generally uh but also in the case of adverse challenges uh is obviously uh an important inclusion.
I I just understood the Lombok treaty and I don't discount that this is an important uh advance but the Lombok treaty established framework for senior consultations that had non-inference respect for sovereignty um defense cooperation elements to it. I'm just I'm just trying to understand what has this change and where does this leave the Lombok treaty? Is that being rescended or is that
>> No, I just said we we we remain committed to Lombok and I said to you it's included in the recitation.
>> You said it's reference.
>> Sorry if I may. You're a diplomat and you know it matters that it's included in the recitations at the front of of that treaty. So, no one is dis disregarding Lombok and all of those Liberal foreign policy staffers who are worried about Prime Minister Howard's um you know legacy on this. We all governments of all political persuasions have continued to build our relationship with Indonesia. The Lombok treaty mattered greatly because it particularly went to territorial integrity and sovereignty. All right, which is very important the relationship. uh the Kading Sahhat treaty is regarded as the high water mark until this moment where we've signed this treaty. Now governments of both political persuasion should and will continue to build this relationship because it matters to our national interests and to our national security and to our prosperity going
>> Thanks Senator Wong. >> Uh so the Lombog treaty this builds upon the Lombok treaty then I just want to
understand. That's correct, Senator. Um, as Minister Wong said, uh, the 1995 agreement on maintaining security was very much seen as a high watermark uh, in the Australia Indonesia relationship and this new treaty um, reestablishes the commitment to consult in the case of adverse challenges to our common
>> Did you wish to say something, M?
>> I just you could just say it's great.
>> I haven't backed in. You could just do that. You know, I haven't offered any criticism, but I'm just keep things
which are above partisanship and Lombog's great too. You could just say that.
>> I don't see how I'm making a partisan point here at all. All I'm doing is
>> graciousness is hard, isn't it? >> It's hard.
>> I think that's quite rich coming from you. >> Okay. >> That's a glass house of stones. [clears throat] >> Thank you. That was all I had on the on the bomb treaty and the Indonesia security agreement. Thank you. We'll go
to