David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

The first point I would make is that I do not accept the proposition that Australia sought to weaken or undermine the convention. Secondly, I would not think it reasonable to describe the interoperability provisions as a loophole. The view of the Australian government regarding the interoperability provisions in the convention is a matter of public knowledge. It is well understood. It is something that, indeed, you and I have discussed at estimates, I think, on several occasions.

Australia's position during the negotiations, and it remains so today, is that the ability to maintain interoperability with countries not party to the convention—and obviously the United States is a signal one of those—is central to the protection of Australia's national security as well as international security. Australia drafted the draft provision underpinning the current text of article 21, and the government is confident of the interpretation of the text which it was closely involved in formulating. The Australian government co-authored a discussion paper that was circulated at the Wellington negotiating conference in 2008, and that paper advocated for an interoperability provision in order to address the concerns of countries who, in the short-to-medium term, intended to continue to cooperate with countries who had no intention of becoming a party to the convention—and of course that includes the United States.

I suppose, in summary, Senator, we differ about your use of language in terms of 'undermining' the treaty or in 'developing loopholes'. We do not believe that is what we have done, and that is not reflected in either our utterances or our accomplishment to date. It is plain and, I think, generally understood that Australia continues to have an alliance relationship with the United States, and the interoperability provision is a key part of ensuring that we can keep faith with the convention and that alliance.