Confucius Institute

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:48): Under standing order 107, I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Hon. Jing Lee on the topic of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Members would be well aware that concerns have been raised about the Confucius Institutes in Australia, and elsewhere, by no less than the Human Rights Watch organisation, which has this year released a Resisting Chinese Government Efforts to Undermine Academic Freedom Abroad—a broad document which contains some 12 points, with advice for academic institutions to uphold human rights. No. 7 of that particular document is 'Reject Confucius Institutes.'

Further, members will also be well aware that previously questions were raised with the honourable member, which she has now provided answers to. Those questions were in response to concerns raised by me as to why the Confucius Institute of Adelaide University had not, at first, complied with requests to release the contract between themselves and Hanban; the nature of the role of the honourable member as a parliamentary ambassador; and why the Confucius Institutes—specifically in this case at Adelaide University—had not complied with the Attorney-General Department's request, and the Attorney-General Dan Tehan's request, to register on the foreign influence registry.

I note that those requests remain unmet, despite other similar groups having complied. I note in particular in Perth the USAsia Centre at the University of Western Australia and the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney have lodged their relationships with foreign governments with the Foreign Influence Transparency register. In response to my questions of 12 September, the honourable member stated, 'I have been informed that the activities of the Adelaide Confucius Institute approved by the university for 2019 do not fall under the category of registrable activities under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.' My questions to the honourable member are:

1. Who informed you?

2. What advice did you personally seek, or did you only seek the advice of the University of Adelaide?

3. How many other parliamentary ambassadors are there of Confucius Institutes in Australia who are sitting members of a parliament: state, federal or territory?

4. Is your appointment as a parliamentary ambassador in and of itself a reason that the University of Adelaide's Confucius Institute should have registered?

The Hon. J.S. LEE (14:51): I thank the honourable member for her ongoing questions and interest in the Confucius Institutes. Many of the questions that she has asked I have already provided answers to, and many of them are not directly relating to my work as either the assistant minister or as a member of the Legislative Council, in terms of how they have structured the ambassadorship.

I previously provided clarification that the only reason they have called me or titled me as parliamentary ambassador is because I happen to be a member of parliament and then, later on, corrected their records openly on their website and in some of their material in terms of marketing. In terms of the questions that have been asked about foreign transparency and questions relating to the Attorney-General's Department, I will take those questions on notice to refer to the Attorney-General.