Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports: Report 159, Treaty Tabled on 1 December 2015, and Report 160, A history of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: 20 years.

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

by leave—Today I present two reports for the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Report 159 and Report 160.

Report 159 contains the committee's views on the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria on Social Security. Report 160 is a brief history of the committee to mark 20 years since it commenced its work.

The proposed Agreement with Austria is the latest Australian bilateral social security agreement. These agreements serve to coordinate pension payments between the signatories and avoid double liability payments for persons working in both countries. The proposed agreement consolidates three existing agreements between Austria and Australia on social security. The initial agreement was signed in 1992 and has been regularly updated and amended. As a result, it has become cumbersome and difficult to negotiate. The new agreement will be easier to read and more accessible. For both countries, transitional provisions are included to make sure that people paid under the current agreements will continue to receive the same benefit at the same rate.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 2014 there were some 19,240 Austrian-born people in Australia and 12,740 of those were aged over 60. Evidence to the committee stated that under the current agreement, Austria pays 3,868 people in Australia approximately $14.4 million annually, and Australia pays 864 people in Austria approximately $4.8 million. The committee recommends that the agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria on social security be ratified and that a binding treaty action be taken.

The second report marks a significant milestone for the committee and for the parliament more broadly. The parliament resolved to set up JSCOT in May 1996, and the committee met for the first time on 17 June 1996. The 1996 reforms saw all treaty actions signed by Australia tabled in parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the committee's processes. Treaties have become increasingly complex. Australians are more connected to the broader world through trade, education and migration. International agreements increasingly affect not only broad issues of state but the actions and responsibilities of individual citizens. The majority of treaty actions are now subject to a public inquiry process, allowing all Australians to have a voice in the treaty-making process. In 20 years, JSCOT has considered over 800 treaty actions and produced 160 reports.

This report includes a history of the treaty-making power in Australia as well as the development of treaty-making practice and procedure. It also includes a summary of the committee's reports to date and provides some useful statistical data. The committee is also holding a full day seminar here in Parliament House on 18 March to mark the occasion. The event will bring together parliamentarians, academics, public servants and members of the public to look at the effectiveness of the 1996 reforms. It is an opportunity to look back over the past 20 years and forward to the next decades. Presenters will talk about what works, what could be done better, and how parliamentary scrutiny can ensure that Australia's treaties are always in our best interest. I would like to invite colleagues to join us for this important event. Full details, including information about the program, are available from the secretariat or on our JSCOT website.

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

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

by leave—As the chair of the committee has outlined, report No. 160 is a reflection on the 20 years since the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and there will be a seminar on Friday which will provide an opportunity for plenty of considered reflection. When I joined the committee, we were up to report No. 90. We are now up to report No. 160. So the committee has occupied plenty of my parliamentary time and energy over the course of the past decade.

I want to mention one of the committee's reports which related to Timor Sea treaties. Back in 2002, East Timor became a sovereign state and signed two treaties with Australia, relating to petroleum in the Timor Sea. When the treaties committee considered these treaty actions, we received 87 submissions. Given the events around East Timor's creation, the treaty inquiry attracted more public attention than it might have done in other circumstances. Most submissions to an inquiry are concerned about its impact on Australian interests, either individually or as a nation. But in this inquiry many submitters wanted to ensure that Australia was treating East Timor fairly and not taking advantage of its fragility. The committee stated:

Continued ill ease at the vulnerability of East Timor was reflected in expressions of concern to the Committee that Australia had failed to treat its northern neighbour fairly in treaty negotiations.

Nearly 15 years later, this issue remains unresolved. Indeed, when I finish here, I am going to speak to a rally of the Friends of Dili on the Parliament House front lawn, organised by Peter Job, expressly around this issue and the need for Australia to negotiate a maritime boundary with East Timor, which is yet to happen.

The treaties committee was initiated by the Howard government to give comfort to those on the political right who were suspicious that the power to enter into treaties was being used by Labor governments to pursue left-wing agendas—and some of them had a rather conspiratorial view about the role of the United Nations as well. But I think over the years it has received considerable support from the left of politics who have wanted to use the committee to scrutinise the globalisation and free trade agenda of large corporations. It has also received support from independent observers, who have seen it playing a positive role in ensuring that treaties receive more scrutiny than they used to, and that the states, stakeholders and the general public are given an opportunity to express a view about them.

While I cannot speak for Senate committees, I do think there are grounds for thinking the treaties committee to be the most important committee that a member of the House of Representatives can serve on. Whereas other committees depend on ministers to give them work and a lot of their work can end up gathering dust in bookshelves, the treaties that are signed by governments are always referred to the committee, and governments do not proceed to ratify a treaty until they have received and considered the committee report. I think that treaties committee reports are taken seriously by government, and, during my time, many of our recommendations have been adopted.

I am pleased that the treaties committee has been able to achieve unanimous reports, by and large, and that we have been able to do so on controversial issues such as nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, even though committee members come to issues like these from quite different perspectives. A spirit of common sense and goodwill has been evident in the committee, both during my period as chair after 2007 and as deputy chair post the 2013 election.

The biggest frustration for committee members and the public alike is that we do not get to see the text of any treaties while they are being negotiated. They only come to us after they have been signed, and people understandably think that we are being presented with treaties on a take it or leave it basis and that the committee is a bit of a rubber stamp. I think it would be better if the committee had some form of access to treaty negotiations while they were being conducted, as I understand happens in relation to, for example, the United States Congress. For example, in relation to free trade agreement negotiations, we have made a recommendation that, prior to commencing negotiations for a new agreement, the government should table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives, including independent analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits of the agreement, and that that analysis should be reflected in the national interest analysis accompanying the treaty text.

I have enjoyed working with some very talented and professional staff of the committee secretariat as well as numerous entertaining, intelligent and conscientious colleagues. It has been a great pleasure to serve on this committee, notwithstanding the amount of reading involved.

I think the issue of the arrangements that nations enter into to regulate their affairs has never been more important. On the one hand, I detect a great yearning around the world for people and nations to be genuinely sovereign and capable of managing their own affairs and making their own decisions. There is a strong push-back against the use of trade treaties to promote the free movement of goods across borders regardless of its impact on local jobs or local standards of environment protection and consumer safety. The strong opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership from both Republican and Democrat US presidential candidates is a classic example of this. There is strong opposition around the globe to the free movement of people, whether under the auspices of the UN refugee convention or not—how else do we explain Donald Trump or UKIP for the rise of the European populist anti-migration parties?

I think that allowing countries the freedom to make their own decisions is important, but at the same time we need to have an effective international rule of law and we need to have a United Nations capable of resolving conflicts wherever they occur; otherwise we will continue to witness the terrible misery and hardship which has blighted our world in recent years. So, having effective global conflict resolution processes, while at the same time giving people around the world a real say in the decisions that impact on their lives, is a massive challenge. That is why I believe the treaties we negotiate and the way we negotiate them has never been more important.