Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the International Fund for Agricultural Development Amendment Bill 2012.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development is a Rome-based UN agency whose mission is to enable poor rural people to overcome poverty through providing access to financial services, markets, technology, land and other natural resources. After concerns were raised about IFAD in the early 2000s, Australia withdrew from the fund in 2004. This was because, at that time, it was considered that:

Following various crises during 2007-08—a global food crisis and a fuel crisis as well as the global financial crisis—the government started contemplating the reasons for withdrawal and how this stood in view of Australia's investments in global food security.

In April 2011, AusAID released a report reviewing Australia's engagement with IFAD. The report concluded that there was a strong business case for Australia to rejoin IFAD. The bill was subsequently introduced into the House and is intended to allow Australia to legally accede to the Agreement Establishing IFAD.

The Selection Committee referred the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and asked the committee to determine whether IFAD had fully addressed the concerns which prompted Australia to withdraw from the organisation and to consider the additional financial and human resources required by AusAID to support Australia's engagement with IFAD.

The committee considers that the various reforms introduced by IFAD since 2004, in part as a response to Australia's withdrawal, have addressed Australia's concerns. Specifically:

Further, by becoming a significant contributor to IFAD, Australia places itself in a prime position to influence the direction of the organisation and maintain its program of reform.

The report also identifies other benefits arising from Australia rejoining IFAD and these should not be ignored. These include:

The committee has also concluded that the burden on Australia's projected aid budget imposed by rejoining IFAD is small, and the additional staff employed, in particular Australia's Rome-based counsellor, will be able to promote Australia's interests with the other Rome-based UN agencies.

The committee concludes that there is significant benefit in Australia rejoining IFAD and has recommended that the bill be passed by the House.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who provided submissions to the review, and to AusAID, who provided evidence at the public hearing. I would in particular like to commend Hansard, which provided the proof transcript within hours of the conclusion of the public hearing. This enabled the committee to meet a very tight deadline for considering the bill. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee—particularly the member for Berowra, who I know has a keen interest in these things—and the secretariat. I commend the report to the House.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not aware that the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was being tabled precisely at this time, but let me say that the report on the International Fund for Agricultural Development Amendment Bill, which was considered by the relevant subcommittee, was not a unanimous report. In fact, there is some substantial dissent in which I and a number of my colleagues have joined, and that dissent really goes to the nub of this legislation that the House will be asked to consider: has the way in which this organisation has been conducted been effectively reformed in such a way as to justify this new decision by the government to rejoin the body and to make substantial financial contributions to it?

It became clear that some issues had at least been raised, but it seems quite clear to me on the evidence that came before the committee that those issues have not been fully and adequately addressed. For that reason the dissent makes it clear that members of the opposition are not prepared to support legislation that will enable Australia to rejoin IFAD at this time and to commence making significant financial contributions to it. Our view might have been different if the reform process had been completed adequately, but when you find that the international diplomats that are party to a body of this type are ensuring that they and their circumstances are well looked after and that they are able to live in substantial premises in Europe on a very significantly subsidised basis, you do ask where our moneys might be going, particularly when they are our aid moneys that we see as being so very important.

There has been some attempt, but I think it has been marginal at best, to also commit some of the IFAD budget to programs within South-East Asia and the Pacific region, which we regard as being important. There have been some attempts to look at where they might be able to work in the Pacific but I do not think they are what I would regard as substantial commitments at this time and certainly they are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the size of the contribution that we are being asked to make. Those who are interested in the matter might find my remarks more fully spelt out in my more considered comments in the dissenting report, but I thought it was important to indicate that while this report has been proffered, having been sought by the House, and the recommendation is that we should approve the bill, that was certainly not unanimously supported and there was substantial dissent by members of the opposition.