Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled: Report 84: treaty tabled on 6 December 2006.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—Report 84 contains the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on the Framework for Security Cooperation. There is an interesting irony in the treaties committee considering this security treaty between Australia and Indonesia, for it was the 1995 Agreement on Maintaining Security, which was negotiated in secret and entered into force without reference to the parliament, which spurred the development of a specific parliamentary committee on treaties. Of course, the agreement on maintaining security was never referred to a treaties committee, as there was not a treaties committee at that time.

Over the course of this inquiry, the committee received 56 submissions and held two public hearings in Canberra and a further public hearing in Sydney. Areas of cooperation in the agreement include law enforcement, counterterrorism, maritime security and the traditional area of defence. The agreement will formalise the strong cooperation already occurring between Australia and Indonesia in areas such as transnational crime, people trafficking and illegal fishing. The committee found the treaty to be in Australia’s national interest and made five recommendations, including the recommendation that binding treaty action be taken.

I will briefly address some of the concerns that were raised in submissions and during the public hearings. Firstly, 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 regards the agreement as providing the basis to strengthen cooperation in areas of strategic importance to both countries. In June and July 2006 the Lowy Institute conducted a poll which showed that 77 per cent of Australians felt it was very important that Australia and Indonesia work together to develop a close relationship. However, in recognition that there are widespread public misperceptions of Indonesia, particularly on Indonesian progress towards democratisation, the committee has recommended that the Australian government engage in a campaign to increase public support for the Australia-Indonesia relationship. This campaign would have the goal of increasing awareness of the democratic reforms in Indonesia and the value to Australian and regional security of a strong bilateral relationship between Australia and Indonesia.

The inquiry revealed that there is widespread concern that article 2(3) of the agreement, which contains a commitment by both Australia and Indonesia not to support or participate in activities which constitute a threat to the stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the other party, 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, stating clearly that the obligation is held by the Australian government and does not in any way infringe individual rights to freedom of expression or freedom of association. Article 2(3) is a reflection of government policy, and 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.

In relation to 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 concerned Papuan human rights and the defence cooperation provisions of the agreement. As media access is restricted in the province of Papua, 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 does agree 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. The committee considers close cooperation with Indonesia to be essential to maintaining security and combating terrorism in the 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 House.

See this speech in context