Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present two reports of the committee, report No. 77 on treaties tabled on 20 June and 8 August 2006, and report No. 78, Treaty scrutiny: a ten year review. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

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. 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. I will comment on report 77 and then report 78.

The committee found all the treaties reviewed in report 77 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 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 US.

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 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, was entered into as part of the Australia-Japan Nuclear Safeguards Agreement in 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 International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors located in Japan, and through the reconciliation of accounts.

The amendments to the Singapore-Australia and Australia-United States free trade agreements to ensure compliance with changes to the Harmonized 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.

The International Health Regulations 2005 will prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with, and restricted to, public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.

Mr President, I would now like to comment on report 78. 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; (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 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 were:

• 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? 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 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 both reports to the Senate.