Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's Report 127, incorporating a dissenting report and treaties tabled on 20 March and 8 May 2012.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—One of the more important treaties covered in this report is the exchange of notes constituting an agreement between Australia and the United States of America to amend and extend the Agreement on Cooperation in Defense Logistics Support.

The exchange of notes will extend the Agreement on Cooperation in Defense Logistics Support for a period of 11 years, and ensure that Australia's bilateral defence logistics cooperation with the US remains on a sound footing. The agreement's continued operation is important to the Australia-US military relationship because it enables the reciprocal provision of military support. It also provides for the establishment of maintenance programs which enhance industry capability and contribute to Australia's military preparedness and interoperability with US forces.

Australia's relationship with the United States is our most important defence relationship. The ANZUS alliance—now in effect for over 60 years—is the cornerstone of that relationship and subsequent agreements such as the one being reviewed here help facilitate that defence relationship. Given the increased cooperation between the US and Australian defence forces over the past decade, this exchange of notes is both logical and practical. It will help facilitate ongoing operations in Afghanistan as well as the deployment of US marines to the Northern Territory.

The committee does, however, note that the agreement is currently 'infrequently used' and could perhaps better serve Australia's interests if some of its provisions were more fully utilised. One example is greater Australian access to US equipment and industry. From the evidence the committee received, it appears that the agreement's potential has not been explored as thoroughly as it could be.

The committee also approved an extension to the 1987 Regional Cooperative Agreement for Research, Development and Training related to Nuclear Science and Technology.

This regional cooperative agreement is a useful mechanism in providing a regional framework for initiating cooperative projects and coordinated research between International Atomic Energy Agreement member states in the Asia-Pacific. Its continued operation over a 40-year period provides tangible evidence of its usefulness.

Although the regional cooperative agreement's role in the non-proliferation architecture is limited, it does perform a role in promoting the non-proliferation objectives. Furthermore, as part of a broader regulatory architecture for nuclear activities it also plays a role in implementing improved standards following events such as those that occurred at Fukushima.

Nonetheless, the committee notes that there may have been an opportunity missed to upgrade the agreement rather than simply 'rolling it over'. As a major supplier of nuclear fuel, Australia could have taken the opportunity to strengthen the safety and non-proliferation aspects of the agreement following the Fukushima disaster. In the past, the agreement has been renewed every five years. On the next iteration, some of the non-proliferation and safety issues could be reviewed by the agreement's parties.

The committee concludes that all the treaties covered in Report 127 should be supported with binding action. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.

I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 128, which contains the committee's views on the Treaties Ratification Bill 2012.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The member for Kennedy introduced this bill into the House of Representatives in February of this year to address what he perceives as the undemocratic nature of treaty negotiation and implementation. The member for Kennedy is concerned that the treaties Australia is entering into are economically damaging to Australian agriculture and manufacturing and that Australia's sovereignty is being eroded.

The way in which trade treaties are negotiated continues to be a matter of controversy and the committee recognises the community's concern. There is a popular perception that Australia is being disadvantaged by these agreements—the fear is that Australia is opening its markets to foreign products and services, which is undermining our own industries, while our competitors retain restrictions on their markets.

The Treaties Committee considered these issues during its study of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement in 2008. At the time, the committee recommended that a more thorough cost-benefit assessment of treaties be provided by the government. The committee reiterates that sentiment in this report with the following recommendation:

That prior to commencing negotiations for a new agreement, the Government table in Parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives, including the anticipated costs and benefits of the agreement.

However, the member for Kennedy's bill is not, in the opinion of the committee, the solution to these concerns as it has a number of flaws that would render it unworkable.

The bill has only one substantive provision:

The Governor-General must not ratify a treaty unless both Houses of the Parliament have, by resolution, approved the ratification.

The committee received a number of excellent submissions and heard evidence from well-informed witnesses at the public inquiry that was held into the bill. From this evidence, the committee concluded that it appears that the bill is likely to be constitutional.

Section 61 of the constitution places the formal responsibility of treaty-making with the executive rather than the parliament. The wording of the bill indicates that the parliament is not taking over the ratification function, but rather makes the executive's decision to ratify conditional upon the parliament's prior approval.

However, the bill would present a number of practical and political problems to both the parliament and the executive, if passed as presented. The sheer number of treaties along with the political composition of the Senate has the potential to overwhelm the parliamentary process. This, and the bill's lack of a provision for short-term emergency treaties, makes the bill unworkable.

For example, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has, on behalf of the parliament, reviewed over 600 treaty actions at an average of almost 40 treaties per year since it was established in 1996. If both houses of the parliament had to, by resolution, approve the ratification of each treaty as the bill demands, the parliament would have little time to complete its other business.

Although other models exist overseas which may add a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny to the treaties review process, the bill is a very brief document which allows little room for amendment without a comprehensive change of its intent.

The committee recognises community concerns about the negotiation of treaties, and in particular the negotiation of trade treaties. But given the practical and political difficulties the bill would pose for the executive, the parliament and the treaty-making process generally, the committee recommends that the Treaties Ratification Bill 2012 not be passed by either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.