Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 116: Treaties tabled on 24 and 25 November 2010, 9 February and 1 March 2011 and Treaties referred on 16 November 2010 (Part 3), incorporating a dissenting report.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 116 contains the committee's views on 15 treaties ranging from amendments to CITES and the Australian-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement to ILO conventions on the working conditions of sailors, the treatment of asbestos and occupational health and safety. I am happy to advise that this report deals with the last of the treaties for which consideration was delayed by the 2010 federal election. It is a credit to the committee's members that it has been able to consider and report on no less than 55 treaties since the election and has met the agreed reporting deadline for each one of them. In addition, for many of the treaties the committee not only issued invitations to participate to its regular stakeholders, including government agencies and state and territory governments, but was able to take evidence from a range of other interested parties. For example, the committee's consideration of amendments to the Australian-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement involved a visit to suiting manufacturers the Stafford Group, whose plant is in North Melbourne. The Stafford Group retails it suits under the brands Anthony Squires, Giotto and 1096.

Anthony Squires is the only retailer of high-quality suits still manufacturing in Australia. The Stafford Group is concerned that this arrangement will be placed at risk by the amendments proposed to the Australian-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. The committee has been assured by the government that it is aware of the Stafford Group's tenuous position and that it is working to ameliorate the impact of the treaty amendments on that organisation.

I also draw the parliament's attention to the participation of the seafaring community in the inquiry into the ILO Maritime Labour Convention. This convention is intended to provide a set of basic working conditions for seafarers employed in international commercial shipping. The convention requires, amongst other things, that seafarers be properly trained, have written legally enforceable pay and conditions, have appropriate living conditions and have access to medical care. Crucially, the convention will ensure that the conditions extend to ships registered in countries that are not party to the convention. International shipping that does not meet these conditions will face severe penalties when it enters the ports of convention signatories. The penalties will remove any shipping cost advantages attributable to poor working and living conditions for seafarers. Amongst those who have already ratified the convention are the flag of convenience states of Liberia, Panama and the Bahamas. The convention has been well received by the seafaring community in Australia. Amongst those expressing support for Australia's ratification of the convention are peak employer organisations, Shipping Australia Ltd and the Australian Ship Owners Association; seafarers representatives, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and the Maritime Union of Australia; and representatives of charities supporting seafarers, the Australian Council of the Mission to Seafarers and the Sydney Seafarers Centre. All of these organisations had useful suggestions about how the convention is implemented, and the committee commends their suggestions to the government for consideration.

It is remarkable, therefore, given the high degree of across-the-board support for this convention, that coalition members and senators could not see their way clear to support it and have issued a dissenting report. It shows how deeply ideological they still are concerning industrial relations questions, how hostile they are to the work of the ILO, the International Labour Organisation. And it shows that, when you scratch below the surface, they have learnt nothing from the 2007 Work Choices debacle which led to their election defeat.

Finally, report No. 116 expresses the committee's frustration about treaties amended without ratification that come into force before they are scrutinised by the committee or the public. For example, the treaty amending the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships was tabled in parliament in November 2010, after having come into force some five months earlier. This does not need to happen. Changes to treaties amended without ratification are provided to signatory countries for consideration up to 12 months before they come into effect. This period allows signatory countries that do not agree to the changes to either opt out of the changes or attempt to have the changes removed. In the case of the treaty amending the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the amendments were provided to Australia in mid-2009 and the period for objecting to the treaty ended in June 2010. There is enough time in this 12-month period for parliament and the public to make a material contribution to the outcome. So our report recommends that amendments to treaties of this sort be referred to the parliament for consideration at the time they are first provided to Australia so that the parliament can have a say before the changes come into force. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context