David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Senator Coonan, I present the 118threport of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Treaties tabled on 23 March and 11 May 2011. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of Senator Coonan, I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(New South Wales) (): The tabling statement read as follows—

Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 118, which contains the Committee’s views on two treaties: the Protocol on Investment to the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement; and the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.

Mr President, Australia’s economic relationship with New Zealand is conducted within the framework of the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, colloquially known as ANZCERTA. It covers all trans-Tasman trade in goods and services, and is the principal instrument for the elimination of trade barriers between the two nations.

The Protocol on Investment will raise the threshold below which New Zealand investors in Australia will require investigation by the Foreign Investment Review Board from a 15 per cent or more share of an Australian entity worth at least $231 million to an investment of $1.005 billion.

For Australian investors in New Zealand, the threshold below which they will not be subject to investigation has increased from $NZ100 million to $NZ477 million.

Both countries have retained the entitlement to review foreign investment originating in the other signatory in sensitive areas, such as urban residential and commercial property investment, media, telecommunications, transport, defence related industries and uranium investments in Australia, and farming, waterfront or sensitive land investment in New Zealand.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade claims that the Protocol on Investment is in the national interest because it:

While the majority of the Committee supported ratification of the Protocol on Investment, the Report contains a dissent in relation to this treaty. The dissent implies that a number of Australians, particularly from rural and regional areas, worry that matters of concern to them are being lost in the debate over the broader national interest.

Mr President, the second treaty considered in this Report is the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.

MARPOL is a multilateral treaty regulating marine pollution. The amendments add a new Chapter 9 to MARPOL dealing with the use and transport of heavy fuel oil in Antarctic seas.

The new Chapter will prohibit the bulk transportation and use as fuel of heavy oils, bitumen and tar and their emulsions, unless they are aboard vessels securing the safety of ships or in a search and rescue operation, and ships owned and operated by governments, such as naval vessels, auxiliaries and research vessels.

The Australian Antarctic Division administers the Australian Antarctic Territory, and is the major Australian presence in the Antarctic.

The Division strongly supports the measures introduced under the Resolution. Nevertheless, implementation of the Resolution will have some operational and budgetary implications for its work.

Mr President, given Australia’s leadership in marine environment protection, it is worth noting that the research vessel chartered by the Division, the RSV Aurora Australis, already uses light fuel, and is therefore compliant with the treaty.

Australia’s stations in the Antarctic are also compliant.

The Division also contracts Russian flagged vessels to provide logistic support for its Australian Arctic Program. These vessels are large, specialised, ice strengthened cargo vessels which unfortunately operate on intermediate fuel oil, which will be banned under the treaty.

However, the Division advised the Committee that the fleet of ice-strengthened cargo vessels is nearing 30 years old, which is the usual end of a ship’s life. The Divisions expects to see a change over in this fleet to modern, compliant vessels in the next five years.

Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.