Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present report No. 84 of the committee, Treaty tabled on 6 December 2006. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to make a few remarks on the report, if I may.

Leave granted.

Report No. 84 contains the committee’s findings on the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on the Framework for Security Cooperation.

There is more than a little irony in the treaties committee considering this agreement between the two countries. Some senators may recall that there was an earlier agreement between Australia and Indonesia with regard to security, the 1995 Agreement on Maintaining Security, which was subsequently abrogated in 1999, I think it was. That earlier treaty was negotiated in secret, and it entered into force without reference to the parliament. In fact, it was that earlier treaty which was the inspiration for the creation of the Joint Committee on Treaties. That earlier moment of negotiation was, in my view, a rather disgraceful moment in the making of Australian foreign policy, one not to be repeated. Happily, we have moved on from that point. I am pleased to note that, with a certain exception, this particular agreement has  widespread committee support.

During the inquiry the committee received 56 submissions and held two public hearings in Canberra and a further hearing in Sydney.

Unlike the earlier agreement, this particular treaty is a comprehensive coverage of the issues and areas of cooperation and of common interest between the two countries. It specifically focuses on areas which might generally be called the non-traditional security area: law enforcement, counterterrorism, maritime security, transnational crime, people trafficking and illegal fishing. It is perhaps worth while noting that in many of these areas there is already a high degree of cooperation between Australia and Indonesia.

The committee found that the treaty is in Australia’s national interests and has made five recommendations, including the recommendation that binding treaty action be taken.

Perhaps I could just make a few remarks in relation to some of the areas of controversy that were identified during the course of the committee’s hearings. First, it was put to the committee that the agreement would be vulnerable to unresolved issues of the bilateral relationship. The committee acknowledges that some aspects of the bilateral relationship are stronger than others, but it regards the agreement as providing the basis to strengthen cooperation between the two countries.

It noted during the course of its inquiry that in 2006 the Lowy Institute in Sydney conducted a poll which showed that 77 per cent of Australians felt it was important that Australia and Indonesia work together to develop a close relationship. The relationship, however, is subject to some widespread public misperception, and it was in relation to that misperception that the committee decided that, particularly with regard to the progress of Indonesia’s democratisation, an effort to be made to try and address those misunderstandings. The committee has therefore recommended that the Australian government engage in a campaign to increase public support for the Australian-Indonesian relationship. The campaign would have the goal of increasing awareness of the democratic reforms in Indonesia and the value to Australia and regional security of a strong bilateral relationship between Australia and Indonesia.

The inquiry revealed that there is widespread concern with regard to article 2(3) of the agreement. This contains a commitment by both Australia and Indonesia that neither will support or participate in activities which constitute a threat to the stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the other party. Some witnesses argued before the committee that this would limit the activities of private individuals in Australia who wish to act, lawfully, to support issues such as human rights in Papua or Indonesia more broadly. Government representatives responded directly to this concern. They made it clear that the obligation in article 2(3) of the agreement does not in any way infringe individual rights to freedom of expression or freedom of association. The committee is satisfied that the article will not limit the lawful expression of individuals’ or groups’ support for Papuan human rights or independence in Australia, should they wish to do so.

In relation to the defence cooperation, the committee supports an approach which engages the Indonesian military, and the agreement provides the basis for cooperation which is intended to improve the professionalism of the Indonesian military. This is in both Australia’s and Indonesia’s national interest. However, many submissions to the inquiry expressed concerns about human rights abuses by the Indonesian military. To address these concerns, the committee recommends that the Australian government increase the transparency of defence cooperation agreements to provide assurance that Australian resources do not directly or indirectly support human rights abuses in Indonesia.

The committee is conscious that most of the submissions to its inquiry concern Papuan human rights and the defence cooperation provisions of the agreement. As media access to the province of Papua is restricted, the committee is not in a position to comment directly on human rights matters, particularly where they relate to the Indonesian military. However, the committee agrees that more open access to Papua would help to ensure greater respect for human rights. For this reason the committee recommends that the Australian government encourage the Indonesian government to allow greater access for the media and human rights monitors in Papua. The committee also recommends that the Australian government continue to address widely expressed concerns about human rights in Indonesia with the Indonesian government and in appropriate international fora.

The committee recognises the high degree of interest shown by particular groups and organisations in relation to this agreement. The committee considers the agreement to be in the national interest as it provides a basis for further cooperation on key issues of strategic importance to Australia.

The committee also considers close cooperation with Indonesia to be essential to maintaining security and combating terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region. The agreement provides the basis for that close cooperation to further develop, and for this reason the committee has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. I commend the report to the Senate.