Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The report Treaty tabled on 6 December 2006 is an important report, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. As Senator Trood alluded, there was not quite total unanimity in terms of the recommendation that the treaty should be ratified and adopted, and I was the dissenting voice with regard to that fact.

I do support the other recommendations the committee put forward, which I think were a genuine attempt to try to address the very genuine concerns that were raised through the three public hearings the committee had, as well as through the range of submissions—the 50-plus submissions that Senator Trood mentioned. Those extra recommendations attempt to address some of those concerns.

There is a key question here. I have spoken on the record in this chamber and more widely a number of times about the importance of our relationship with Indonesia, the need for us to strengthen that relationship and particularly, as one of the committee’s recommendations goes to, the need to much more properly acknowledge the quite incredible progress that Indonesia has made in a very short space of time with regard to democratisation, given not only the reality of that country’s history but also its enormous area, its large and diverse population and the difficulties of putting into place some institutions from scratch, particularly putting them in the place of what was basically an authoritarian regime. These are difficulties which we perhaps do not appreciate in Australia, given our history of democracy stretching back over a century. There has been incredible progress. I think that in Australia we very much underestimate that, and it is appropriate that we do a lot better to make our community aware of that.

That appropriately celebrated fact cannot ignore the reality that there are still very significant human rights problems in parts of Indonesia, particularly with regard to some elements—not all but some—within the Indonesian military. A key reason that makes this a very difficult issue to address and ameliorate quickly is that the military still obtains a significant part of its resourcing off-budget, outside of government funding, through other activities, so it is able to function, in part, independently of the government with regard to resourcing. We cannot ignore that area.

It is appropriate to learn from the history of the previous treaty, which was signed in 1995 by former foreign minister Gareth Evans, from memory, and Mr Ali Alitas, the Indonesian foreign minister at the time. It might even have been on a jet plane in midair; I do not know why I have that imagery in my head but that is what I recall. Senator Trood is right to criticise that as a disgraceful process, not just in terms of the secrecy and the lack of consultation—that was pretty much par for the course in those days—but also because it did what I still fear we may be at risk of doing here, even though a lot of the other circumstances are different, which is ignoring the reality of serious problems in some parts of the Indonesian military, including Kopassus. We knew that reality existed.

Leaving aside the inadequacies in the process of that agreement being reached, let us not forget what it also led to and the concerns the people raised at the time: that the defence cooperation component of that agreement could leave Australia open to training, in Australian facilities—including Canungra, in south-east Queensland, near Brisbane, where I am from—Indonesian military people who were later alleged to have been involved in very serious human rights abuses, particularly in relation to East Timor. We have got that history to be aware of and, whilst many things have changed for the better, I do not think we can ignore the fact that not everything has changed as much as we would have liked, particularly in that area.

I do not think we can just say that we are not in a position to comment on the human rights situation in West Papua with regard to the military. It is pleasing that there is a recommendation here—and I support it—that more be done in opening up access to West Papua, but of concern is the very fact that we are signing a treaty that involves defence cooperation with a government who will not let people in to see what is happening in the key area—not the only area but the key area—where there are repeated, continual, regular allegations, and a lot of documented reports, of serious human rights abuses involving elements of the military. I do not think we can just say that we are not in a position to comment about it. We might not be able to make a completely fully informed comment, but I think there is enough information around to make a reasonable degree of commentary.

That said, that still leaves us with that balancing act that is often an issue in international relations. I very much bow to Senator Trood’s far greater expertise and experience than mine in this whole area of international affairs and the like, but I was very much taken with the evidence, particularly by Hugh White. We had two people involved in the Lowy Institute who made similar assessments but came to different conclusions about how the treaty would help in addressing them. There is obviously still a lot of mistrust between our two countries, based in large part on misunderstandings, a lack of awareness and simply a lack of knowledge. That is why it is worth supporting any recommendation that goes to improving that understanding and cooperation, not so much government to government but more people to people, civil society to civil society and institution to institution to help repair those misunderstandings or build that awareness and some of that shared engagement that we need to improve on. It is extraordinary really, when you think about it, to have Indonesia as one of our nearest neighbours—such a major country on a global level, not just significant regionally—and we have not only quite limited engagement with it in lots of ways but also such a poor basic understanding.

There is no doubt that Papua is an issue of extreme sensitivity for Indonesia, and I understand some of the reasons for that. I also appreciate that it is a bit much for Australia to be appearing to lecture Indonesia in some respects about places like Papua. I, as many people have, could go through the history of how Papua came under Indonesian rule and the disputes there, but, frankly, I do not think Australia has much to lecture other countries on when it comes to self-determination for indigenous people and original inhabitants of a land. Whatever people may say about resources in West Papua being exploited and going to other parts of the country, and the people indigenous to that region not having enough of a say, a whole lot of our country’s mineral and resource boom is on the back of resources taken from Indigenous land in the north of Australia with the immense wealth there, and we did not give them any sort of referendum about whether they wanted other people to move in. So I think we need to be conscious that every country has its own failings, including Australia. Indeed, I would say our lack of ability to acknowledge our own extremely flawed history with regard to Indigenous Australians is a bit of a parallel in terms of our extreme sensitivity to criticisms about that and our blind spots about that. It is not a perfect parallel, I certainly concede, but I think there are some similarities there about how every country has its areas that they have particular sensitivities over.

The key approach, I think, that Hugh White put forward is really whether this will help or hinder in the long term in strengthening cooperation or whether putting in place this treaty will mean we are more likely to kid ourselves that we can ignore some of those areas that do need a lot of work—to use an analogy, whether we are papering over a small crack that will just help seal that in or whether there is actually quite a large crack there which, by papering over it, we will ignore and be less aware of when bigger problems are emerging. I am not convinced that the level of understanding between countries at all levels, at the societal level as much as at the government level, is such that this is the right time for this. I think more work on some of the other recommendations, particularly in terms of engagement, would assist with that—particularly judging from some of the other evidence that was given to the committee, for instance by Clinton Fernandes, about the potential consequences and impact of having defence cooperation in these areas.

It is an area I wrestled over a lot, but I do think that at this stage it is not the appropriate time. I think we can learn from history and see some of the reasons for that. That is not an anti-Indonesian view; in a way it is saying that I want as strong as possible a relationship with Indonesia and I think this may be premature in giving us the best chance of making that happen. There were a range of other issues that were raised that I do not have time to go through now. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.