Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor 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 203: Australia-Japan Reciprocal Access Agreement; Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report into two proposed treaty actions: the Agreement between Australia and Japan Concerning the Facilitation of Reciprocal Access and Cooperation between the Australian Defence Force and the Self-Defense Forces of Japan and the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education.

The Australia-Japan Reciprocal Access Agreement has been negotiated in the context of a more contested strategic environment and represents part of the growing security cooperation and strategic alignment between Australia and Japan. Ultimately, this agreement is set to strengthen Australia's military capabilities and our ability to support an open, secure and resilient Indo-Pacific.

As a reciprocal status of forces agreement, the agreement would establish a legal framework for defence cooperation to occur, dealing with a range of issues including movement of forces and equipment, the use of facilities and services, command and control, claims, costs, and criminal jurisdiction. As such, the agreement would contribute to more efficient and less administratively cumbersome defence cooperation.

The committee's attention during the inquiry was significantly focused on the criminal jurisdiction provisions in the agreement and accompanying documents. This was because Japan retains the death penalty for certain offences. The committee examined the status of the death penalty in Japan; the compliance of the agreement with Australia's international obligations and our separate national strategy for the abolition of the death penalty; and the extent of protection offered by the agreement against the potential application of the death penalty.

The committee noted evidence from participants to the inquiry who expressed concern about the use of the death penalty in Japan; recognising that under this agreement there isn't absolute protection from the death penalty for Australian servicepeople or relevant civilian personnel who might be based in Japan.

Nonetheless, the committee was informed that the duration of negotiations to reach this agreement, over the course of some seven years, was significantly due to consideration of the death penalty issue.

There can be no doubt that in regard to the proposed agreement and associated documents considerable effort has been made to deal with that issue.

In concluding its inquiry, the committee found that while a blanket immunity was not achieved, very significant steps—negotiated over a substantial period of time—have been taken to protect Australian personnel from the possibility of being subject to the death penalty in Japan, while also maintaining Australia's international obligations.

The committee notes that in 2018 Australia adopted a distinctive whole-of-government Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty; that Australia seeks to be a global leader in this cause; and that the Australian government opposes the death penalty in all circumstances for all people.

When considered in the context of Australia's increasingly complex Indo-Pacific strategic environment, the committee was of the view that on balance the agreement was in the national interest and accordingly recommended binding treaty action be taken.

Moving now to the committee's inquiry into the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, a treaty in whose negotiation Australia played a key role, I want to indicate that the Committee heard—took evidence—that the global convention would provide a framework for the recognition of Australian qualifications internationally, and the recognition of overseas qualifications in Australia. In so doing, it would potentially have significant benefits for Australia's education sector. And, of course, that's one of two service sectors that fall within the top five export earners for Australia.

In effect, the global convention establishes universal principles and processes for the recognition of studies and qualifications, and the right of individuals to have their foreign qualifications assessed in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.

Broadly, the global convention would require the recognition by parties, for the purposes of study and employment, of qualifications gained overseas unless it can be shown that an overseas qualification is substantially different to the corresponding qualification in that party's nation-state. The onus is placed on competent recognition authorities to establish the grounds for substantial difference if that is asserted. The process must be transparent and occur in a timely manner.

Importantly, Australian decision-makers would retain full autonomy with regard to which overseas qualifications would be recognised, and how that would occur.

The global convention has the potential to improve Australia's competitiveness globally for students and skilled migrants; to demonstrate Australia's leadership and promotion of best practice; and to contribute to positive international relationship-building; and remove trade barriers.

The committee was of the view that ratifying the global convention was in the national interest and recommended accordingly.

On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.