Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn't get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public.

Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization's records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what's going on with this bill?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I'm advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization's records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill doesn't change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it's reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn't change those at all. It doesn't seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they're liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I've already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It's not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you explain to me what the substance of this bill is in terms of indemnity and privileges? I get very windy when I find out that foreign organisations get legal privileges over the average everyday Australian. In light of the particular harsh censorship that's been imposed upon Australian people in regard to social media by social media companies, and how they're getting away with that, can you again summarise what the key purpose of this bill is, please?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Rennick. The bill makes three changes to the act. First, it will enable Australia to declare an organisation of which Australia is not currently a member as an international organisation under the act. Perhaps I can explain that that's important because there are organisations which, for one reason or another, we may not be able to be a member of or we may not at this point in time seek to join but we nonetheless wish to cooperate with them, so it is useful for us to be in a position to offer them these immunities and privileges so they may conduct activities in Australia that are in our national interest. Secondly, it will allow Australia to confer privileges and immunities on categories of officials not prescribed in the act where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia, and it will amend the act to allow more flexibility in the conferral of privileges and immunities to international organisations and connected persons.

Both of those latter two points go to essentially technicalities and challenges in the interpretation of the act as presently constructed. For example, in some instances where an official's title might be described, in the treaty that establishes the organisation, in terms different to how it is described in our act—even though they are functionally the same thing and we would ordinarily seek to offer privileges and immunities to such a person exercising those duties in our country—it's been challenging legally. So it addresses technical complications that have impeded our capacity to offer privileges and immunities where there is a policy interest in doing so.

The broader point the government would make is that the bill will provide new opportunities for Australia to cooperate with international organisations. We anticipate that that would assist in deepening our defence, science and other strategic relationships and more broadly enhance our engagement with the multilateral system.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just be a little bit more specific in terms of whether this is taxation privileges? Is it legal privileges? Whenever I hear the term 'multilateral agreements'—my experience with multilateral agreements is in regard to tax treaties and, in particular, sovereign wealth funds, whereby we have an agreement that sovereign wealth funds who invest in Australia don't have to pay tax here, and likewise our sovereign wealth funds who invest overseas don't have to pay tax over there. To me, that's not in the national interest at all, because we erode our tax base when we do that.

What you've just read back to me then was basically reading—I've asked for the substance of the matter here. Have we got particular organisations that are going to be immune from taxation, from the normal legal requirements of any citizen? I fail to see why, in order to be a part of the global community, we have to give these organisations, whoever they may be, privileges that aren't available to other Australian citizens. So, as I said, what is the purpose of this? Why is this needed now, when it's never been needed in the last 110 or 120 years of federation?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps one way of providing some reassurance to you is to give you an indication of the organisations that are presently receiving privileges and immunities under the act, because it might describe the scope of the current legislation, and then I can talk a little about how we propose to change it. Presently the act confers privileges on international organisations, and these are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making between states. The international organisations that are currently in receipt of privileges and immunities under the act include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Court of Justice, the Asian Development Bank, the International Mobile Satellite Organization, the International Seabed Authority and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

These are the kinds of organisations that have been offered privileges and immunities, and we do that because it is in our national interest to have these organisations active in Australia and because it's necessary to ensure that these organisations can function independently and effectively across the globe. For example, article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations accords the United Nations the privileges and immunities necessary for the fulfilment of its purpose. So, we have some obligations in a range of treaties to offer these privileges and immunities to these international organisations that work in the international community. The bill maintains the requirement that an eligible organisation must be an international organisation as already defined in the act. It makes an important change though, which is that it allows us to offer religious immunities to an organisation that we're not a member of. As I explained earlier, there are good reasons why we might want to do so.

I conclude by pointing to the safeguard that I referred to earlier in my exchange with Senator Roberts. These questions are established by way of a regulation. They are disallowable instruments and, in addition to, of course, the minister being constrained by the objectives of the act, the Senate has a measure of scrutiny about any decision that's proposed through regulation.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from Senator Rennick 's questions, I'm specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The World Health Organization is an entity that's comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that's happened with the United Nations World Health Organization?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn't affect the Australian government's capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wouldn't stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of 'international organisation', so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia's operations?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.