Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak as deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on Report 227: Nauru-Australia Treaty; Radio Regulations WRC-23. Firstly, I'm very pleased to have been appointed deputy chair of this important committee, which inquiries into any treaty to which Australia has become a signatory. In this unstable global trade environment and challenging geopolitical context, our role as scrutineers on behalf of the Australian people has never been more important. I thank the committee chair, the member for Bendigo, and the secretariat for their able and quick work in assisting the committee, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs officials, for their extensive appearance before the public hearing last week. I also thank all my fellow committee members for their consideration and collaboration on this report.

This is the first inquiry of the treaties committee in the 48th Parliament, and our report makes two recommendations: to support both major treaty actions reviewed and to recommend that binding treaty actions be taken. However, as members can read in the report, the committee members raised concerns in the context of the prospective Nauru-Australia Treaty, which go to this government's attentiveness to mapping our relations with our South Pacific neighbours.

Australia and Nauru entered this treaty in late 2024, establishing a comprehensive partnership encompassing economic support, banking services and security cooperation. This agreement elevated the longstanding, close relationship between the two countries to a formal treaty level, with Australia committing significant financial assistance and Nauru offering strategic concessions in return. The treaty recognises Australia's strong interest in Nauru's future security and critical infrastructure arrangements with third parties under article 5 of the agreement, a provision aimed at ensuring balance and ongoing stability in the South Pacific region.

However, the effectiveness of the treaty is already being brought under question following Nauru's apparent decision to enter into a socioeconomic development agreement valued at $1 billion with the hitherto unknown China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation. The investment proposal, as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade chose to describe it in its testimony to our committee, was signed just weeks ago on, Monday 11 August 2025, and purports to span renewable energy, infrastructure, agriculture, transport, tourism, marine fisheries and sea infrastructure, and cultural exchange programs. In hearings before our committee last week, we explored whether a pre-emptive triggering and potential breach of article 5 of the treaty may have already occurred. The committee was reassured by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that they have made inquiries as to the nature of the investment proposal.

Nonetheless, it was made very clear to us that the department only became aware of the announcement of the so-called investment proposal when it was published on the Nauruan government's website. The level of involvement, if any, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs or Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs have had in relation to this matter remains entirely unclear. Unfortunately, 'unclear' seems to be the key word for circumstances surrounding this important treaty action. We are no wiser as to the status of the investment proposal, nor indeed of the character described as the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation. Nor do we know how this investment proposal will impact this treaty between Nauru and Australia, particularly article 5.

What are the relevant ministers doing in response? At this point, that is equally unclear. More concerningly, how has the government allowed a potential breach of this treaty to occur when the ink has not yet dried on it? It would appear the government has been caught unawares, and they have not explained what significant actions, if any, they're taking to rectify it. Last week, the Minister for Home Affairs made a quick flight to Nauru to announce a $408 million immigration detention deal, seemingly without any coordination with this treaty's processes. This government's engagement with Nauru appears to lack crucial strategic clarity, and this uncertainty has opened the door to other Asia-Pacific players keen to test Australia's credibility as a reliable partner with Nauru. If Nauru was willing to enter a generous deal with the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation so soon after signing their own agreement with Australia—and, indeed, while concurrently negotiating a generous deal with the Minister for Home Affairs and his department—it raises some questions. Has Australia's support fallen short of expectations? Was communication lacking? And what does this mean for other deals between Australia and our South Pacific neighbours? Does it mean that they are wise to hedge their bets?

In closing, Australia has few friends as close as our neighbours in the South Pacific region, in terms of both cultural and strategic interests, than our friends in Nauru. With this treaty, the government has promised Nauru, 'We've got your back, both economically and security-wise, in exchange for loyalty.' Australia has been working to confirm its commitment to the region by signing numerous security and defence cooperation treaties, many with exclusivity clauses. The efficacy of that strategy is now being tested in Nauru.

See this speech in context