Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports: Report 169Future Submarine Program—France; Classified information exchange—France, which incorporates a dissenting report, and Report 170—Social Security Agreement—New Zealand; Nuclear Research Cooperation Agreement; Loan Agreement—International Monetary Fund; Harmonization of wheeled vehicles—Revision, which incorporates another dissenting report—there is a trend.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 169, which contains the committee's review of two agreements with the French republic. The first agreement is a framework agreement to support the Future Submarine Program. The second agreement is an upgrade to an existing agreement from 1985 to enable the exchange and protection of classified information. The report was tabled out of session in April.

The framework agreement for the Future Submarine Program has five general objectives. First and foremost, the agreement provides for the transfer, ownership and use of French-owned technology and information to Australia.

Secondly, the agreement establishes obligations on France to ensure Australia's sovereign operation of the Future Submarine and security of the supply of information and equipment.

Thirdly, the agreement provides for maximum local industry engagement.

The fourth and fifth objectives of the agreement provide for the joint development of research and technology; and a governance and performance framework for the program.

The committee supports the framework agreement, but we note that it is merely the first step of many in ensuring Australia's national interests in the Future Submarine Program are not only protected but maximised.

The committee's review raised two main issues. Firstly, we must ensure that costly and critical mistakes in previous Defence acquisitions are not repeated. The agreement provides a solid starting point, but the committee recommends that the Department of Defence ensure that all the lessons from the build of the Collins class submarine are learnt.

Most importantly, this includes making sure that the intellectual property of the Future Submarine is stored, managed, maintained and constantly upgraded to absolutely guarantee Australia is always able to operate, maintain and sustain the next generation submarine. This intellectual property needs to be stored somewhere separately and externally to the general government department. It needs to be readily accessible, always available and always updated.

The committee also has requested the department to report back to the committee in the winter sittings of 2018 on its progress in obtaining and managing the necessary intellectual property, and the committee expects the Department of Defence to have an answer to all of these issues.

The second issue is the French obligation to maximise local Australian industry engagement in the Future Submarine Program. It is good to see my good friend the member for Boothby, from South Australia, here supporting such an investment in the great state of South Australia.

As the largest Defence acquisition in Australia's history, the Future Submarine Program presents great opportunities for local businesses not just in South Australia but right across the country.

Businesses will also be able to leverage opportunities within the wider global industry supply chain. Australians are great innovators—some of the best innovators in the world. Innovation in this program should readily be able to be applied right throughout DCNS's global supply chain.

The committee notes that 'maximising' local industry will need effective implementation of the contractual and other arrangements that will sit underneath this treaty. Therefore, the committee recommends that the government ensure that all detailed agreements and arrangements allow Australian companies to bid for work in all phases of the program on a preferred basis, all things being equal. I make no apologies for being Australian first when it comes to jobs, growth and Australian businesses. To ensure local industry involvement is maximised, the committee also requests that the department report back to the committee on the contractual and other arrangements that have secured operations for Australian industries.

Noting these recommendations, the committee recommends the parliament proceed with binding treaty action.

Report 169 also deals with Australia's bilateral agreement with France for the exchange and protection of classified information.

The agreement seeks to strengthen existing arrangements between Australia and France for the exchange of such information.

Although the agreement is a standalone treaty action, it was tailored at the same time as the framework agreement for the Future Submarine Program. Indeed, the agreement will support the Future Submarine Program throughout all stages of construction and sustainment.

The agreement is far more comprehensive and prescriptive than its 1985 predecessor. It has four key features.

Firstly, it requires parties to protect classified information to a standard at least equivalent to the protection afforded domestically.

Secondly, it sets out how classified information can be transferred between parties.

Thirdly, it enables Australia and France to mutually recognise security clearances of government officials and contractors.

And finally, it regulates how each party enters into or authorises classified contracts in the territory of the other party.

As with previous agreements of this kind, the committee relied on assurances from government that the classifications and security clearance processes are equivalent. The committee did not receive detailed evidence to verify these equivalencies and has therefore not formed a specific view on the matter and simply relies on the government's assurances in this regard.

The committee does regularly review treaty actions of this kind, however, and considers such treaty actions as generally noncontroversial. However, through the course of its inquiry, the committee was alerted to a number of matters which have been included in this report.

Chief amongst these are the timeliness, method and integrity of personnel security clearances. The committee expresses concern about delays in obtaining security clearances that have—in the past—hindered Australian businesses in bidding for Australian defence work. There have also been problems in the limited scope of sponsorship to obtain a necessary Australian security clearance.

In order to be an effective element in maintaining confidentiality of information, personnel security processes must be sufficiently thorough. I think we all agree with that. The committee notes in its report that personnel security clearances should be continually assessed, and based on information received across organisations and jurisdictions.

The committee therefore recommends that the government bring forward, as a matter of urgency, its work program to connect state and federal law enforcement and judicial information systems and bodies with the personnel security clearance systems.

Noting this recommendation, the committee recommends that binding treaty action be proceeded with.

I also rise to present the committee's Report 170, which contains the committee's review of four separate treaty actions:

The revised social security agreement with New Zealand provides joint responsibility for the payment of social security benefits for people that have lived between Australia and New Zealand.

Australia has had a bilateral social security agreement with New Zealand since the Second World War, indeed 1944.

The revisions to the existing agreement better align the eligibility and provision of social security payments to the domestic legislation in both countries.

The committee's report also reviews the regional cooperative agreement on nuclear science and technology. The proposed agreement updates an existing one from 1985. That existing agreement facilitates Australia's cooperation with 21 countries in the Asia-Pacific on nuclear research technology and medical physics.

The committee's report documents recent examples where Australian experts have had considerable involvement in projects with their counterparts in the region.

The third treaty reviewed by the committee is a bilateral loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The agreement renews Australia's existing commitment to loan the IMF $8.3 billion in certain circumstances.

The committee concludes that the agreement is in Australia's national interest as it ensures the IMF is sufficiently equipped to respond to any future international economic instability. The agreement is simply renewing an existing agreement put in place by the previous Labor government.

Finally, the report examines revisions to the agreement on the harmonisation of United Nations wheeled vehicle standards.

This agreement provides for the development of standardised regulations that increase vehicle safety. Standardising those regulations will reduce barriers to international trade of motor vehicles.

The committee supports the four treaty actions in Report 170 and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.

On behalf of the committee, I commend the two reports to the House.

I move:

That the House take note of Report 169: Future Submarine Program—France, Classified Information Exchange—France.

See this speech in context