Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Report 78 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is, as its chairman has mentioned, a report of the seminar held in March this year to mark the 10th anniversary of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The seminar addressed four main themes: reflections on a decade; treaty making and review in a federal system; new developments in treaty making and review; and perspectives from abroad. I would like to provide a brief overview of the discussion on each of the themes.

During the first session of the seminar, ‘Reflections on a decade’, I had the honour of addressing the seminar as the only person who has been a member of the committee since its inception in 1996. The diversity of this committee is probably known to those of us who have sat on the committee, but those who have not would not be aware of the wide-ranging issues that come before the committee to be dealt with.

We as a country are signing treaties constantly with other parts of the world and other nations, and I think these issues are being reflected more now in areas such as globalisation and trade. So it is a very interesting committee; that is why I have stayed on it and I was very honoured to have had the privilege of addressing the seminar and talking about my experiences as a member of the committee.

We heard from Mr Neil Roberts, a member of the Queensland parliament, who spoke about the impact that treaty making by the federal executive can have on the states and territories. I think it is important—I mentioned in my talk as well that this will become, I believe, more and more of an issue as time goes on—for the states to take this as a pretty important issue. He emphasised the importance of early and thorough consultation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to ensure the effective and consistent implementation of treaty obligations. The last speaker in the first session was Ms Devika Hovell, from the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of New South Wales. She critically assessed the committee’s performance in reducing the democratic deficit of treaty making against three criteria—transparency, scrutiny and democratic accountability—which was a good academic approach. While acknowledging the achievements of the 1996 reforms, which created a more open and transparent treaty making process, Ms Hovell argued that the parliament more generally should have a role in acting as a check on the power of the executive.

During the second session of the seminar, ‘Treaty making and review in a federal system’, we heard from Mrs Petrice Judge, a former member of the Standing Committee on Treaties, or SCOT, as it is known, a body established to provide a process for information and consultation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on treaties. Mrs Judge considered how SCOT was established, its purpose and its effectiveness. In the second session of the seminar we also heard from Ms Anne Twomey. Ms Twomey was the secretary of the Senate committee that wrote the report Trick or treaty? Commonwealth power to make and implement treaties, which eventually resulted in the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. She spoke about what the states asked for in their submission to the Senate inquiry, what they got at the time and what they want now. The second session also heard from Professor Richard Herr, who looked at the role of state parliaments in the treaty scrutiny process.

In the third session, ‘New developments in treaty making and review’, we heard three interesting and varied papers. The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spoke about the rise of free trade agreements, Associate Professor Greg Rose spoke about Australia’s treaties with its regional neighbours and Professor Aynsley Kellow spoke about climate change treaties. It was a very good seminar. It did the parliament proud, and I am sure that as further members speak on this report and as we go towards the next 10 years it will be seen as very worthwhile. (Time expired)

See this speech in context