SpeechCanberra, 13 March 2002.at the Treaties in the Global Environment SeminarConsultation And Scrutiny: Treaties And The Development Of Public PolicyIntroductionThe Hon. Rod Welford, Attorney-General of Queensland; our host, Peter Grey, Deputy Secretary of the Department; distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to address this lunch for the Treaties in the Global Environment seminar - a very welcome initiative on a subject in which I have had a personal interest for some years. I extend a special welcome to those on their first visit to the R.G. Casey Building. The Government’s 1996 ReformsWhen we were elected in 1996, many people –including myself –believed the treaty making process lacked transparency. International agreements were being made with little or no input from the community –on whose behalf they were, after all, being negotiated. Governments had operated virtually unfettered by any effective scrutiny of treaty processes. So, as you know, one of the first steps we took on assuming office was to reform the treaty making process. The reforms entailed:
These reforms are now an integral part of Australian treaty making process. They have meant increased consultation with the community, NGOs, industry bodies and academia. And they have given the Parliament a greater say in Australia’s international obligations. Consultation and ScrutinyToday, I would like to focus particularly on the themes of consultation and scrutiny –setting out for you how the reforms are working. First, I will highlight how consultations with stakeholders are now an integral part of the multilateral negotiations in the WTO. Second, I would like to demonstrate how JSCOT has facilitated community consultations through its public inquiry into the International Criminal Court Statute. Third, I want to show how bipartisan parliamentary scrutiny through the JSCOT has affected subsequent treaty actions by the Government. Stakeholder Consultations: WTOWTO agreements on global trade liberalisation affect all Australians. As Dr Calvert indicated this morning, the pursuit of Australia’s interests within the World Trade Organisation is a major priority for the Government. In September last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in a report entitled Who’s Afraid of the WTO? reviewed Australia’s relationship with that body. The Government welcomes the committee’s interest in the WTO. Its report was comprehensive and timely - coming as it did just before the much-anticipated launch of the new Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. I do not intend to pre-empt the Government’s response to the report. But I would like to comment on the committee’s recommendations regarding increased community consultation in developing Australia’s negotiating positions on WTO matters. We have a very good story to tell. The Government has consulted in seeking policy input and advice. Indeed, my Department consulted widely with the public in framing the Government’s objectives for the first round of WTO trade negotiations. More than 130 submissions were received from State Governments, business groups, trade unions, non-government organisations (NGOs) and concerned individuals. Officials conducted public hearings in all state and territory capitals, and in five regional centres. One of the outcomes - a paper responding to frequently asked questions –was posted on my department’s web site to encourage further public discussion, and to explain the nature of the WTO preparations then under way. Consultations with industry and the agricultural sector have been formalised through a number of bodies chaired by the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile. These include the Trade Minister’s Trade Policy Advisory Council, the WTO Advisory Group and the Agriculture Trade Consultative Group. In addition, National Trade Consultations are held annually between the Trade Minister and State and Territory counterparts. We also consult informally with industry associations and the agriculture sector in developing detailed negotiating strategies. Indeed, state officials and members of the Trade Minister’s WTO Advisory Group participated in the Australian delegation to the Doha meeting. And since the release of JSCOT’s WTO report, a new Trade Advocacy and Outreach Section has been created in my department –to help promote the benefits of trade to Australians. JSCOT’s Role in Increasing ConsultationI began these remarks by referring to JSCOT’s WTO report. That document was the committee’s 42nd since its creation in 1996. JSCOT is the second largest and one of the most active of the Parliament’s committees. In examining more than 200 treaty actions since 1996, it has made more than 300 recommendations. These have been the product of 2862 submissions made by 1808 witnesses, representing 779 departments, agencies and NGOs, at 142 hearings conducted at 62 locations around Australia. I believe JSCOT has played a particularly useful role in public consultations on the International Criminal Court Statute. This is a complex and significant treaty, and there has been considerable, often misinformed, media and public debate on the merits of Australian ratification. I believe JSCOT’s ongoing public inquiry has helped to dispel some of the myths surrounding the ICC. The Committee has received 237 submissions and held a number of public hearings in State capitals. While Committee did not complete its report before the parliament was dissolved, I hope the newly constituted committee will take up the issue as a matter of priority, I support strongly Australia ratifying the ICC Statute. Australia played a leading role in negotiating the Statute. However, I have made it clear that the Government will await JSCOT’s report before taking further action. Government Response to JSCOT RecommendationsJSCOT is not without teeth. It is the basis of a process that has integrity and is credible. Parliamentary committee publications are littered with dissenting reports from Opposition members. It is, however, considerably less common for an entire committee to criticise a government - as JSCOT has done from time to time. This may not be the ideal state of affairs from the Government’s perspective - but it demonstrates that the reforms are really working. The fact that we have accepted Committee recommendations also demonstrates our commitment to the process. OECD Bribery ConventionOne such example is the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery. In 1997-98 JSCOT examined legislation to implement the Convention. It was the Committee’s first review of domestic legislation drafted in response to a treaty obligation. It’s fair to say that JSCOT did not think much of the Bill. The Committee found the definitions in the Government’s Bill too narrow and vague, and called for the Bill’s jurisdiction to be extended. The Government agreed to review the Bill –as a result a number of definitions were amended. We also agreed to extend –partially - the jurisdiction of the Bill. We said, however, that we would not have the Bill provide for prosecution of the corrupt actions of foreign nationals or companies operating in Australia, whose wrongdoings had occurred outside Australia. Pragmatically, JSCOT accepted that Australian companies operating overseas would need to provide what it described as ‘facilitation benefits’in order to carry on business. The committee effectively recommended that Australians doing business overseas should not be left open to a bribery charge if they made such payments to secure a routine government service. The point here is this: the process worked. JSCOT fulfilled its responsibilities –and in doing so influenced the role and position on the Government on an important treaty. Economic and Commercial Agreement with KazakhstanJSCOT broke new ground in 1997 when, for the first time, it recommended that Australia not ratify a proposed Agreement –in this case, concerning economic and commercial cooperation with Kazakhstan. At issue was the Kazakh Government’s treatment of Telstra, with which it was disputing a licensing issue. JSCOT recommended the Government not reconsider ratifying the Agreement until Kazakhstan had demonstrated good faith in its trade and investment relations with Australia. JSCOT also criticised the National Interest Analysis (NIA) prepared by my Department. The Government agreed to defer the Agreement. We also agreed to revise the NIA to outline developments in Australia’s trade relations with Kazakhstan before taking any new treaty action. By 2001, a number of planned Australian investments in Kazakhstan –including Telstra’s - ran into difficulties. The agreement remains unratified today, indicating the caution with which the Government embarks on binding treaty-level commitments. Consular Agreement with ChinaMy own Department has not escaped JSCOT’s censure. In 1999, inits report on ao Consular Agreement with China, JSCOT criticised DFAT as having not consulted adequately with Australian-Chinese community organisations. You will not be surprised to hear that officials involved in subsequent negotiations on bilateral consular agreements are especially attuned to the need to consult fully the relevant community organisations. ConclusionSeminars such as this, of course, are very much in tune with the spirit in which we reformed the treaties process. It gives me great satisfaction to see those reforms operating so well. The robust relationship between the Committee and the Government is proof that we now have a more transparent and accountable treaty making process. All Australians now have the opportunity to have their say –and as a result public debate about treaties is becoming much more sophisticated. I trust that this seminar will encourage you all to play your part in this valuable process. And I look forward to hearing your views on this seminar.
|
