Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. I acknowledge this is a largely technical bill, one which introduces new powers for the government to grant privileges and immunities, such as immunity from Australian legal processes or tax exemptions for Australian residents employed by any organisation, to particular international organisations and individuals.

At the outset I want to acknowledge the work of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee in relation to its consideration of this legislation, and particularly the work of coalition senators and their additional comments, which I will reference during my remarks this morning. The government, in introducing this bill, indicated that its aim is to provide flexibility in the granting of privileges and immunities, to give effect to privileges and immunities agreed under existing treaties—for example, with entities such as the OECD—and to assist in deepening Australia's defence, science and other strategic relationships.

The coalition has a strong record of ensuring that international organisations and relevant officials are granted the necessary privileges and immunities to function effectively and to operate independently. This is in important recognition that the types of diplomatic privileges extended to countries with whom we have diplomatic relations and who have a presence in Australia as a function of those diplomatic relations also extend to the network of international organisations that pursue interests that Australia aligns with that undertake important work in the advancement of diplomacy internationally in the advancement of other issues and causes of concern to Australia. And it's important that they have the ability to operate effectively and to operate independently and, in doing so, have comparable capacity and capability to engage as nation states do in their engagement of work in Australia under various diplomatic immunities.

In the past there has been a strict and conventional interpretation of what was and was not an international organisation. This has been a longstanding approach of successive Australian governments and it's one that in particular my coalition Senate colleagues gave careful consideration to in relation to the government's proposed changes to this act. The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 was first introduced and passed by the coalition during the Menzies government in bipartisan spirit. It repealed an earlier privileges and immunities act which had been in existence since 1948. The act sought to give the parliament a greater degree of control over the kinds of privileges and immunities that may be conferred. Indeed, former Senator Gorton—later, of course, to become Prime Minister Gorton—stated in his second reading speech, as referenced in our additional comments:

… under the previous Act, regulations may be made to give effect to any international convention on the subject to which Australia has acceded. The regulations could, provided that they give effect to such an international convention, be unlimited in their scope and subject only to the procedures for disallowance of regulations …

It was important for the government at the time that there remain a substantial degree of parliamentary control, which is why the replacement act was put in place, and that that control was exerted in terms of limitations in the types of regulations that could be made.

In February 1982 the coalition amended the act again with the support of the then Labor opposition. It was amended in particular because of an agreement between Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, or CCAMLR, convention. The amendments expanded the power to make regulations under the act so that representatives in international organisations attending CCAMLR conferences in Australia could be accorded similar privileges and immunities to those accorded to the representatives of member countries. This again, as I emphasised, goes to a concept of consistency between the treatment of those nations with whom we have diplomatic relations and who enjoy certain immunities and protections in relation to their operations in Australia and to similar privileges and immunities being extended to organisations undertaking similar and comparable international work and advancement.

In 1997 the coalition again made further amendments, again with the support of Labor, to ensure that the act kept pace with the increasing number and diversity of international organisations being established. As former Senator Parer stated in his second reading speech:

Australia only grants privileges and immunities which are required under our international obligations and commitments. When negotiating privileges and immunities as part of international agreements, this Government takes the line that specific items should be included only where there is a demonstrated functional need. We have to be satisfied that the specific privilege or immunity is necessary for the effective operation of the organisation.

This again highlights a key principle that is to be maintained in relation to the operation of such privileges and immunities, be they extended to other nations or to international organisations: that, critically, in a country such as Australia—with a strong rule of law that is upheld here and high standards in relation to the application of those laws and precedents—we should be providing exemptions, privileges and protections only so far as they are necessary and appropriate.

The 1948 act was further amended in 2013—then by a Labor government but again, in bipartisan spirit, with coalition support—to allow for the making of regulations to confer privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross and also in relation to the International Criminal Court. At the time, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated that providing a separate legislative basis for regulations relating to the ICRC, rather than expanding the definition of 'international organisation', would ensure that the act contained a legislative basis for enacting regulations conferring privileges and immunities on the ICRC without—and this is important—'inadvertently extending the scope of the act to other organisations'.

DFAT's submission to the inquiry undertaken in relation to the bill before us today does not specifically go into the reasons for the change in position since 2013, which sought to ensure a step-by-step approach, if you like, in terms of the inclusion of international organisations and how they are outlined. It is our view that the parliament should continue to ensure, itself, that the new arrangements being proposed work in ways that prevent the inadvertent extension of the scope of privileges or immunities to other organisations. But we do note, importantly, in terms of the operation of this bill, that the conferral of privileges will continue to occur by the making of regulations and that these regulations will continue to be tabled in parliament and will be subject to the usual disallowance procedures. We also note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had no comment on the bill, and that is a committee that is, of course, well known for its work in relation to ensuring that any overreach by governments about the use of regulations is called out.

We also note that DFAT have highlighted the limitations that exist in the current framework, as stated in their submission and highlighted in our additional comments:

… Australia is currently unable to declare an organisation to be an 'international organisation' under the Act in order to confer privileges and immunities on it unless Australia is a member of, or has a person representing Australia in, the organisation. While the Act currently provides for an organisation of which Australia is not a member be an 'overseas organisation', the privileges and immunities that can be granted to such an organisation are more limited, as they only apply to persons connected to the organisation—not the organisation itself. The provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill will remedy this deficiency in the Act to expand the category of organisations which can be declared an International organisation to include organisations of which Australia is not a member.

Whilst it may seem unusual to some for us to wish to extend the application of the act and the conferral of privileges and immunities under the act to organisations that Australia is not a member of, there are indeed many examples of organisations, such as European based organisations, that have geographically based memberships but also very close connections, partnerships and working relationships with Australia. The same could be said in relation to ASEAN. Again, it's an organisation with whom Australia has very close relations and longstanding partnership principles in place. Though Australia is not a member, we would certainly wish to ensure that we were able to operate in a way where we provided as much respect to its operations as we would any other with whom we had such close relations.

Whilst the coalition senators have noted that this bill's approach does somewhat deviate from the approach taken previously by the coalition and by the Labor Party in the parliament more generally during previous proposals, we recognise that the proposed changes, implemented appropriately and with sufficient safeguards, will prevent inadvertent expansion to organisations and that it does have the potential to broaden and deepen Australia's engagement with the international community in a way that streamlines operations. It is the current practice, as we've highlighted, that privileges and immunities are only conferred where Australia has agreed to do so.

Coalition senators also note that the explanatory memorandum states that the bill would also allow for the conferral of privileges and immunities set out in schedules 2 to 5 of the act on categories of officials not prescribed in the act where requested by an international organisation and agreed by Australia. We note that, whilst there is nothing explicit in the bill that requires an international organisation to request the conferral of such privileges and immunities, it is reasonable to infer that a request would have to be made for such a conferral to receive the agreement of Australia.

We will, and we trust that the parliament will, through various processes, including committees that assess regulations, carefully monitor the implementation of the new framework. This will ensure that Australia continues to grant privileges and immunities when they are required under international obligations and commitments but that we do not extend them to apply to organisations where they are not required, nor do we extend the scope of those privileges and immunities beyond what is absolutely necessary. With that, I indicate that, consistent with all previous engagements on this bill, we maintain the bipartisanship that has been applied to its modernisation and amendments over time.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today in support of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 on behalf of the Australian Greens. We in the Greens recognise that this amendment has the potential to broaden and deepen Australia's engagement with the international community. We agree that international organisations carry out critical work, particularly in the areas of humanitarian work, scientific exploration and other fields, to promote international cooperation and collaboration. The Greens do share concerns that DFAT's submission did not go sufficiently into the reasons for its change in position since 2013 and therefore does not articulate how the new bill prevents or mitigates the department's previous concerns regarding the expansion of the scope of the act.

We believe in Australia's role in international cooperation. We are deeply committed, as a party of peace and nonviolence, to cooperation and peaceful consensus-building with our friends and our partners. Our movement is built on a belief and a foundation that global cooperation facilitated by peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution is essential to ensuring human and environmental wellbeing. Foreign affairs, we believe, should operate on relationships of exchange, collaboration and genuine consensus-building.

With the oldest governance structures globally, First Nations peoples' approaches to interpolity, coexistence and relationship-building with neighbouring political entities should drive foreign affairs policies. We need to acknowledge that, if we are to address the climate crisis, to eliminate nuclear weapons and to collaborate on so many of the other pressing issues which face our collective human species, we need to use this knowledge and wisdom and place it at the heart of how we work. We need to work together to address the shared human and environmental challenges that we are now faced with.

The foreign minister noted in a brief on the bill, which was provided to my office in our consideration of the legislation, 'The bill will improve Australia's ability to attract and host international conferences.' Which conference do we think they pointed directly to? They included the 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change—COP31—for which Australia has bid. Yes, it has. Hasn't the Australian government bid for COP? Yet, I think, and the Greens believe, that the government needs to do a lot more if it truly wishes to attract COP with dignity and to make a pitch for such an important global gathering upon a basis of integrity.

I am privileged to have had the opportunity to meet with Pacific leaders during their visits to Australia. In this political landscape, it is always a pleasure to be a foreign affairs spokesperson who can wholeheartedly embrace and hear their climate concerns. It is a pleasure to be somebody that can sit with them and not ask them to validate their fears and frustrations, and not ask them to balance their reality of losing their homes and their sacred sites to the ever-rising waters of the Pacific against the internal difficulties of taking action, as they are so often asked to do by representatives of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. It is a pleasure to be able to meet with them and work with them in solidarity in the fight against catastrophic climate change, which they are facing on the front line.

Former leaders, including leaders of the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Palau, have said that Australia should stop trying to hurry their countries to support Australia's bid for COP31. I'll just make that clear. Our country has been placing pressure on Pacific island leaders to support this nation's bid for COP in a context where their homes are sinking because of the very fuels that this government continues to burn and rip out of the ground and as a direct result of government action. This is just the latest example of a patriarchal and disingenuous approach to foreign policy which has characterised the approach of the Australian government to the region not just for the last couple of governments or for the last couple of decades but, indeed, since the very beginning of an independent Australian foreign policy approach in our region. From the very beginning, the leaders of both the Liberal and Labor parties—whatever side of politics they have been on—have been on a unity ticket when it comes to the Pacific with a sole goal in mind, and that's to maintain Australian power in the region on behalf of the United States and to operate effectively, first and foremost, as a sub-imperial power.

That has meant that at every step when Pacific island leaders have come together, whether it be to join in the non-aligned movement and to be represented at Bandung as the world came together to chart a pathway to peace in the middle of the Cold War, where was Australia? It was bugging those meetings and actively placing policies in the way of such peaceful and non-violent cooperation in the face of the global arms race. When Pacific leaders come together to champion the denuclearisation of their homes and waters to make sure that their homes and lands are never again the site of nuclear testing—when their homes and lands have so often been used as the playground, the theatre, as global powers play arms-race games at their expense—where is Australia? Australia is actively undermining the work of global nonproliferation and actively bringing a nuclear arms race to their backyard through our government's support of AUKUS.

For decades and decades, Pacific leaders have sat around table after table with prime ministers from all sides of parliament and begged them to stop burning the coal and gas that is sinking their homes. And this government has the cheek, the barefaced audacity—I am losing track of the number of coalmines that our so-called environment minister has approved. She is not only failing to keep the stuff in the ground and not only failing to transition away but actively opening more. Yet the Australian government has the cheek to go to a Pacific island nation—to Fiji, of all places, which has relocated town after town due to rising waters. This is not at some theoretical point in the future; multiple towns have already had to be relocated, with many, many more on the list. Minister Bowen, from the other place, goes into a meeting with Pacific island leaders in Suva and comes out saying that he hopes that this COP, to be hosted in Australia, will be remembered as the Pacific COP. What a joke! What a cruel farce!

The reality of the moment is this: the Australian Labor Party can pick between, on one hand, the donations given to them by the Woodsides and the BHPs and the Rio Tintos, for which the Prime Minister is so proud to shill, and positive headlines in the Murdoch press and, on the other hand, Pacific island nations.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Steele-John. There is a point of order.

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

I've been listening to the contribution from Senator Steele-John. I believe the characterisation of the Prime Minister's behaviour is not consistent with the standing orders.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, please restrain yourself in relation to this. I know it's a passionate issue for you.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't necessarily think it was to the extent that it needed withdrawal, but, if you want to make a further submission, I didn't quite hear it to its fullest extent.

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

I'm reluctant to repeat the characterisation, but Senator Steele-John may wish to consider—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, to the extent that it offended the chamber, I'd ask you to withdraw.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I think Senator McAllister did make a very good point. I think there was a crossing of a boundary in terms of a reflection.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a debate. Senator Steele-John, please proceed.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to withdraw. I wouldn't want to offend Mr Albo Tinto, in the other place.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, please. You don't make my life any easier.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright. They're in a sensitive mood. I understand. It's fine. I withdraw.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Please proceed.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pacific island leaders are begging Australia to stop opening up new coal and gas mines in its approach to the COP summit, and so they should. Our planet is burning. Our country, this country, stares down the barrel of a fire season catastrophic in its extent. Senator Allman-Payne is with us in the chamber today for the state of Queensland, which is in a catastrophic fire danger moment right now. Yet the first order of business that this government has set out today for this Senate sitting period is the passage of a bill to enable it to host a global meeting ostensibly with the purpose of addressing climate change, and government ministers are currently travelling around the Pacific pressuring leaders of those nations who are at the forefront of the climate crisis to get on board with their bid.

Well, I tell the chamber this morning: I back Pacific island nations in their opposition to Australia hosting COP until it has committed not to dig up another lump of coal or to burn another litre of gas. It is the very least we can do in solidarity with them. The Greens will continue to work in solidarity with Pacific island leaders to build the consensus around transformative climate action that we have heard so clearly from them that they so urgently require of us as a nation and of this government as a self-styled leader.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some additional comments, particularly following the contribution of Senator Birmingham on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, of which I am Deputy Chair, has reviewed this bill and made a recommendation that it should pass this chamber. However, I think it is important to put on the record during this debate this morning some of the additional comments that coalition senators made in the inquiry report, so that it is clear that the new arrangements that will be put in place by the bill should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are effective and that there is not a creep of scope in terms of the organisations which can be made eligible for exemptions.

The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 introduces new powers for the government to grant privileges and immunities—such as immunity from Australian legal processes or tax exemptions for Australian residents employed by the organisation—to international organisations and individuals. The bill contains one schedule which the explanatory memorandum explains will amend the act to:

I note that the exclamatory memorandum also references that the bill will not change the specific privileges and immunities contained in the act, nor does it change the process of the conferral of privileges and immunities on an organisation, which generally occur by way of regulations made by the Governor-General. The government's stated aim in introducing this act is to provide flexibility in the granting of privileges and immunities, to give effect to agreed privileges and immunities under existing treaties—for example, with the OECD—and to assist in deepening Australia's defence, science and other strategic relationships.

The coalition has a strong record of ensuring that international organisations and relevant officials are granted the necessary privileges and immunities to function effectively and operate independently, particularly during our own time in government. In the past, there has been a strict and conventional interpretation of what was and what was not an international organisation. This was a longstanding approach of successive Australian governments, and coalition senators have given very careful consideration as to why this approach should now change, as referenced in our additional comments in the committee report. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's submission to the committee inquiry didn't actively engage with the reasons for its change in position since 2013, and it doesn't articulate how this new bill prevent or mitigates the government's previous concerns regarding an inadvertent expansion of the scope of this act. We're of the view that the parliament should continue to assure itself that the new arrangements put in place by this bill are working in ways that prevent the inadvertent extensions of scope to other organisations. These privileges and these immunities that we are talking about with this bill are important ones, and they should not be extended without due consideration of the possible implications of doing so.

We note that the conferral of privileges will continue to occur by the making of regulations rather than through legislation, and these regulations are tabled in the parliament and are subject to the usual disallowance procedures, particularly in this place. There is an avenue for the parliament to disallow if it believes an incorrect or inappropriate decision has been made to extend the privileges and immunities in question to an international organisation. We in the coalition will be carefully monitoring the implementation of this new framework to ensure that Australia continues to grant privileges and immunities when they are required under our international obligations and commitments, and in ways that do not inadvertently extend the scope to other organisations or without due reason for doing so.

We need to be very conscious that immunity from Australian legal processes is a major privilege afforded to certain international organisations, and therefore it should be applied only in very strictly controlled circumstances. There are, of course, many organisations and groups around the world who are not currently granted this status and this privilege but would like to be. So it is critical that we in the parliament keep a close watch, going into the future, to ensure that there is not a creeping of the scope of these privileges, that they are not inappropriately extended where they should not be, and that we don't lose appropriate oversight and scrutiny of where, when and to whom these privileges and immunities are provided.

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

I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the international organisations on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. In particular, I thank the opposition and the Greens for their indication of support for the legislation before us. I note that Senator Steele-John took the opportunity to make a series of observations about the government's approach to seeking international agreement to host COP 31 here in Australia, and I might, in the briefest of terms, provide a response to that, because the characterisation of the government's motivation, of the government's approach to our discussions with our Pacific family and of the government's approach to climate action is wrong.

I start by indicating that the government understands how deeply significant the issue of climate change is to our Pacific family. Indeed, the former government's inability to accept the science of climate change or formulate a policy in relation to climate change was a key sticking point in making progress in this important relationship. It's a challenge we have sought to remedy, first, by establishing a clear pathway for Australia to meet our obligations in the international community to reduce our own emissions; second, by deeply engaging with Pacific partners on their concerns and interests; and, third, by re-engaging in a constructive, active, deliberate way with the broader multilateral framework on climate change. You've seen this, I think, reflected in the work of the foreign minister, of Minister Conroy, who has responsibility for the Pacific, of the Prime Minister, of Minister Marles and of Minister Bowen, all of whom have sought to engage closely with our Pacific neighbours, because the Pacific family is important to the government, of course, and is also important to Australians. We understand that Australians have deep, close relationships across the Pacific family, and they are relationships that we seek to reflect and honour in the approach we take to diplomacy.

Returning to the bill, may I say this: this bill will benefit Australia. It will provide new opportunities to cooperate with international organisations, and it will assist Australia in giving effect to our international obligations, aligning our domestic laws more closely with the treaties to which we are a party. It will increase flexibility in which privileges and immunities we grant, where agreed to by Australia and in our national interest. The changes proposed in this bill are small, but they are important. Firstly, they will enable Australia to accord privileges and immunities to international organisations of which Australia is not a member. This includes, for example, the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, with which Australia has concluded a framework agreement. Second, the amendments will allow Australia to grant privileges and immunities to classes of officials not set out in the act, where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia. Finally, Australia will have more flexibility in granting the existing suite of privileges and immunities under the act to international organisations and their officials.

The government's objective is to participate in the multilateral system actively and constructively. To achieve this we need to support its institutions and recognise the benefits that international organisations bring to Australia, the region and the world. The bill reflects the commitment of this government to these objectives. On that note, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.