Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report entitled Report 77: Treaties tabled on 20 June and 8 August 2006.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Report 77 contains the findings and binding treaty action recommendations of the committee’s review of six treaty actions tabled in parliament on 20 June and 8 August 2006. The committee found all six treaties reviewed to be in Australia’s national interest. The committee is continuing its review of the amendments to article 3 of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement and a promotion and reciprocal protection of investments treaty with Mexico tabled on 28 March and 20 June respectively. The committee is also inquiring further into the China uranium transfer and safeguards agreements tabled on 8 August. I will comment on all the treaties reviewed in Report 77.

The agreement relating to scientific and technical cooperation between the government of Australia and the government of the United States of America will build upon and strengthen the science and technology relationship between Australia and the US established under its predecessor agreement. The agreement, by establishing guiding principles, will provide for shared responsibility in collaborative activities and the equitable sharing of costs and benefits. The agreement will also expand opportunities for collaboration between agencies and serve to enhance research links between Australia and the United States.

The amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material amend the convention of the same name and will serve to strengthen the objectives of the convention, which ensures that nuclear material is adequately protected when transported internationally, in addition to extending this protection to nuclear facilities and material in peaceful domestic use, storage and transport. The amendments also provide for cooperation between and among states to assist in the detection and recovery of any stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigate any radiological consequences of sabotage, and prevent and combat related offences.

The exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of Japan to replace the delineated and recorded Japanese nuclear fuel cycle program adds the UK’s Sellafield plant and Japan’s Rokkasho fuel fabrication plant to the facilities at which Japan may undertake mixed oxide fuel fabrication. The delineated and recorded Japanese nuclear fuel cycle program is a treaty-level implementing arrangement between the government of Australia and the government of Japan and was entered into as part of the Australia-Japan Nuclear Safeguards Agreement 1982 and sets out how the Australia-Japan Nuclear Safeguards Agreement is to operate in practice. Australia ensures that Japan meets its obligations under the Australia-Japan Nuclear Safeguards Agreement through an established system of safeguards, including a permanent office of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors located in Japan, and through the reconciliation of accounts.

The amendments to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement to ensure compliance with changes to the harmonised commodity description and coding system will, through changes to how goods are identified, seek to avoid possible confusion and subsequent delays in processing of goods by customs authorities.

Finally, the International Health Regulations 2005 updates the 1969 IHRs to include new threats such as SARS, avian flu and ebola, all diseases which require a coordinated international public health response. I thank the committee secretariat for the work they have done on this report and for facilitating the public hearings. I commend the report to the House.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 77 contains a review of six treaty actions, all of which are recommended for binding treaty action. The agreement with the United States of America in relation to scientific and technical cooperation will help to promote and increase the collaboration opportunities between Australian and US researchers. This includes collaboration in areas like joint research projects, task forces, seminars, conferences, symposia, training and exchange of scientists and technical experts, exchanges of information relating to activities, policies, practices, laws and regulations concerning science and research development.

In addition to ensuring the safe transport of nuclear material, the amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material ensure member states assist in tracking down any smuggled nuclear material, alleviate the consequences of sabotage and prevent related offences. The exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of Japan to replace the delineated and recorded Japanese nuclear fuel cycle program adds two new facilities at which Japan may undertake mixed oxide fuel fabrication. The program lists facilities at which Japan may process, use or reprocess Australian obligated nuclear material in connection with Japan’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The facilities listed include power plants and conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants.

The amendments to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement ensure compliance with the changes to the homogenised commodity description and coding system to reflect changes to tariff line numbers resulting from changes to the homogenised commodity description and coding system. The revised system will take effect on 1 January 2007. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that Australia’s or its partners’ obligations under the respective free trade agreements are not altered. The international health regulations were adopted by the World Health Organisation assembly in May 2005, and helped to stop the international spread of disease. Australia is not party to the previous international health regulations which monitored and controlled six serious infectious diseases: cholera, plague, yellow fever, smallpox, relapsing fever and typhus. Under the revised international health regulations, states are required to notify the World Health Organisation of events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern.

I commend the report to the House and thank the committee secretariat for their hard work in helping to produce this report.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee’s report entitled Report 78—Treaty scrutiny—A ten year review.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Report 78 contains a report of the seminar held in March this year to mark the 10th anniversary of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was established in 1996 as part of a package of reforms to the treaty-making process. Since then, the committee has tabled recommendations on over 380 treaty actions in 77 reports.

Prior to the establishment of JSCOT, during the 1970s treaties were tabled in parliament but often in a manner which prevented meaningful parliamentary scrutiny or input. Treaties were tabled in bulk approximately every six months and often after they had entered into force. By the 1990s Australia had entered into a period of negotiating a broader range of treaties, some of them quite controversial. There was also a growing awareness that international obligations affected domestic legal regimes and policy responses to a wide range of national issues. In recognition that parliament ought to be able to scrutinise Australia’s international treaty obligations, JSCOT was established in May 1996.

Four other key reforms were introduced at the same time that JSCOT was established. These consisted of: (1) the tabling of treaties in parliament for a minimum of 15 sitting days before the government takes binding treaty action; (2) the tabling of national interest analyses to explain the reasons for the government’s decision to enter into the treaty and to detail the impact the treaty would have on Australia; (3) the establishment of a Treaties Council as an adjunct to the Council of Australian Governments to consider treaties and other international instruments of particular sensitivity to the states and territories; and (4) the establishment of a treaties information database for individuals and interested people to easily and freely obtain information on any treaty. A fifth reform involved a change to the Standing Committee on Treaties, or SCOT as it is otherwise known. SCOT was not established as part of the 1996 reforms but its role and functions were formalised as a result.

The treaties committee has a dual role in providing for the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties and in increasing the transparency of the treaty scrutiny process. As part of its role in providing a more transparent treaty making process, the committee also functions as a check that adequate consultation has taken place. After 10 years of JSCOT it was fitting that a seminar be conducted to assess the 1996 reforms and to look more broadly at the role of the legislature in the treaty making process, both here and overseas.

On 30 and 31 March this year, the committee held a seminar to consider the role and effectiveness of the committee, the treaty making reforms and the role of parliaments in the treaty making process. The seminar commenced with a reception hosted by the Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth parliament, including you, Mr Speaker, and a dinner addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security. The following day the seminar heard from a diverse range of people who were involved or interested in the treaty scrutiny process.

Some of the issues which participants considered included the following: has the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties made the treaty making process more democratic, transparent and accountable? How adequate is the consultation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in relation to treaties and how could it be more effective? How has the failure of the Treaties Council to meet more than once since 1996 had an impact on the treaty making process? The seminar also provided an opportunity to consider recent trends in treaty making, such as the increase in free trade agreements, treaties with regional neighbours and climate change treaties. Finally, the seminar provided the opportunity to consider the committee’s role and Australia’s treaty making processes in an international context.

It is clear from the seminar that the committee is seen as a successful and effective body and was considered by seminar participants to be the strongest performer of the 1996 reforms. The report contains a detailed summary and analysis of the issues discussed at the seminar. I commend the report to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Does the member for Boothby wish to move a motion to refer the matter to the Main Committee?

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.

Question agreed to.