Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The minister continues to display his ignorance by again misrepresenting what I was partly through saying and by demonstrating that he does not know what a point of order is. If, for once, the minister could actually listen, what I was saying is there are many people in the wider community who used to make quite outrageous statements about the distorted nature of international agreements and who used to suggest that such things were giving away Australia’s sovereignty. There were many people—including the Democrats, as I said—who agitated in this place throughout the early 1990s to give the parliament a greater role in scrutinising those agreements. Indeed, the Democrats suggested that the parliament should have the opportunity to vote down international agreements in the same way as we do with various regulations and delegated legislation.

It is a strange anomaly that we have the potential in this parliament to vote down minor details of subordinate legislation, regulations and minor ordinances but we do not have the power to vote down major international treaties, as of course many other parliaments around the world do. Nonetheless, the fact that this government went halfway towards allowing some scrutiny of treaties was a positive development. After the completely stupid and arrogant contribution by Senator Kemp just then, it pains me to note that Senator Kemp had a positive role to play in that. Obviously since then his overpowering arrogance has completely enabled him to ignore the contribution by anybody else except himself in that particular role.

It is very important to emphasise that, whilst this has provided some improvement in scrutiny and has allowed the parliament to demonstrate that the grossly overstated complaints of some in the community about the nature of international agreements was indeed overstated, it has nonetheless shown its limitations over the 10-year period. I think what we have seen over the period of 10 years is an indication that whilst the process to date has its positive mechanisms it could be made to be more positive. I would still like to see the parliament able to negate treaties—and I realise that would be a fairly significant shift—but regardless of that I do think the committee itself could take a more proactive role.

I would point to one of the lower points in the history of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties over the 10-year period, when it refused to consider a reference from this Senate chamber to consider a proposed treaty action. In fact, it refused to do so more than once. I thought that was probably the lowest point in the committee’s history. The committee had a clear-cut reference from this Senate chamber asking it to examine a matter regarding the Australian government’s ongoing negotiations with the US government to see if the US could be exempted from the provisions of the International Criminal Court. It was on the public record a number of times that Mr Downer said he was pursuing the matter. This Senate passed a resolution asking the treaties committee to examine the matter, and the committee simply refused to do so. That is an example of a problem that occurs when a committee is government dominated and when you have the sort of arrogance from government members that Senator Kemp has so effectively demonstrated. Arrogance and ignorance are a pretty horrible combination to subject a parliament to, and it is unfortunate when it starts to infect parliamentary committees. Whilst the committee has performed a useful role, it has nonetheless fallen short of its potential.

It did take a proactive role on a few occasions—most particularly, for example, with the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment that was proposed at one stage. It was a clear time when the committee did not wait until the government had finished all its work in negotiating a treaty, wait until it was tabled and then look at it. What it did was to take account of the fact that there was consideration being given to a possible international agreement being adopted, and it initiated its own inquiry to take evidence from the government and to hear concerns from the community and the public on that issue. It enabled public input into the issue prior to the treaty being agreed to.

That is the area where I think the committee could do a lot more effective and proactive work. At the moment, most of the time but not all of the time—indeed, the hearings this morning would be one example—the committee waits until the process is completely finished and the treaty has been negotiated and tabled in this place prior to it being adopted and then it investigates. That is fine on the vast majority of occasions. A huge number of agreements are adopted each year, many of which are uncontroversial, and that is the right way to do things. But occasionally there are incidents where it would be beneficial even for the government—assuming that we had a government that listened to anybody, which of course we do not have at the moment; but one day we will have a government that feels as though it needs to listen to the community—to hear public input in advance of when a treaty is negotiated rather than at the end. I think that is the area where the treaties committee could move on to the next stage and be much more proactive in its work and much more involving of the community and community input. It is that aspect of the committee process that has always been the most beneficial and where I would urge the committee to go from here. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.