AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Australian Year Book of International Law

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Australian Year Book of International Law >> 2002 >> [2002] AUYrBkIntLaw 10

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Ratnasingham, Christine; Macdonald, Angela --- "Australian Practice in International Law 2001" [2002] AUYrBkIntLaw 10; (2002) 22 Australian Year Book of International Law 285

Australian Practice in International Law 2001

Compiled by

Christine Ratnasingham and Angela Macdonald

Edited and supervised by

Peter Scott

Legal Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I. Sovereignty, Independence and
Self-Determination

Afghanistan

On 22 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Interim Authority in Afghanistan. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government welcomes the inauguration of the new Interim Authority in Afghanistan. This highlights the impressive progress that has been made in a very short time towards restoring that country to peace and stability.

To demonstrate Australia’s support and commitment, I am pleased to announce that Australia will contribute $1 million to the new Interim Authority through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) established and managed Afghan Interim Authority Fund. Our contribution will help provide the new Authority with staff and much needed basic resources such as office equipment.

The Interim Authority, established by a UN conference hosted by the Government of Germany earlier this month, will pave the way for political transition in Afghanistan to an elected government. The Australian Government congratulates the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, and Afghan participants on their excellent work.

Australia recognises that the humanitarian problems within Afghanistan and the South West Asian region are enormous but believes that the outlook is improving. In supporting the Interim Authority, Australia will help provide the framework for reconstruction and improved security to enable displaced Afghans to return home and contribute to rebuilding their devastated country.

Australia has already committed $23.3 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees and displaced people in Afghanistan and South West Asia.

Further Australian assistance will be considered in the context of an Afghan Reconstruction Needs Assessment being undertaken by the UNDP, World Bank and Asian Development Bank for a donor coordination and pledging meeting in Tokyo in January.

Australia

On 29 August 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard delivered a Second Reading Speech concerning the Border Protection Bill 2001. Extracts from the speech concerning sovereignty follow:

That vessel [the MV Tampa] entered our territorial waters in defiance of a direction given by Australia. In the absence of firm action on the part of Australia, it could have led to the illegal entry of the persons on board into Australia, thus undermining Australia’s control over its sovereign territory.

Those who enter our territorial waters contrary to an express direction from the government should not be rewarded by being allowed to stay in our waters or, even worse, by having the opportunity to enter our land territory.

While the government believes that there is appropriate legal authority at present, for more abundant caution this legislation will ensure that there is no doubt about the government’s ability to order such vessels to leave our territorial waters.

The protection of our sovereignty, including Australia’s sovereign right to determine who shall enter Australia, is a matter for the Australian government and this parliament.

… this bill will confirm our ability to remove to the high seas those vessels and persons on board that have entered the territorial waters under Australian sovereignty contrary to our wishes. It is essential to the maintenance of Australian sovereignty, including our sovereign right to determine who will enter and reside in Australia.

It is in the national interest that this vessel not be allowed to remain in Australian territorial waters. It is in our national interest that this vessel be returned to international waters. It is in the national interest that we have the power to prevent beyond any argument people infringing the sovereignty of this country. One of the great enduring responsibilities of a government is to protect the integrity of its borders. There is no doubt that the integrity of the borders of Australia has been under increasing threat from the rising flood of unauthorised arrivals.

The circumstances surrounding the Tampa are particular but they are nonetheless a metaphor for the dilemma that this country faces.

On 18 September 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Phillip Ruddock delivered a Second Reading Speech concerning the Migration Amendment (Excision From Migration Zone) Bill 2001. Extracts from the speech relating to sovereignty follow:

The Australian public has a clear expectation that Australian sovereignty, including in the matter of entry of people to Australia, will be protected by this parliament and the government.

The Australian public expects its government to exert control over our borders, including the maritime borders to our north.

In the light of growing threats to our borders I am introducing a package of three interrelated bills today.

These bills are the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001, a consequential bill and finally a bill to enhance our border protection powers and confirm that recent actions taken in relation to vessels carrying unauthorised arrivals, including the MV Tampa, are valid.

… regardless of much effort by many governments, law enforcement agencies and international organisations, the illegal trade in people-smuggling persists.

The government is determined to stop these smugglers, and this package of bills is an important measure in achieving these goals.

More important than public perception and the issues of sovereignty ought to be our capacity to help those who have the greatest need for a protection outcome where the opportunities are diminished when smugglers effectively steal the places.

The third in this package of bills will provide for minimum mandatory sentences for people convicted of people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act.

The changes will provide that repeat offenders should be sentenced to at least eight years imprisonment, whilst first offenders should be sentenced to at least five years.

Those provisions will send, in my view, a very important red light to would-be people smugglers.

This first of the three bills is designed to fulfil the commitment the Prime Minister made on 8 September to excise some Australian territories from the migration zone.

These territories will become “excised offshore places”, which will mean that simply arriving unlawfully at one of them will not be enough to allow visa applications to be made.

The effects of this bill will be limited only to those who arrive without lawful authority.

Australian citizens and others with authority to enter or reside in the territories will not be affected.

The package should not be misinterpreted as “fortress Australia” legislation.

Australia will continue to honour our international protection obligations.

We can be, and we are, justly proud of our immigration record and our welcome to settlers from all over the world who have come to Australia lawfully.

Australia is a country whose nation building record owes much to those who migrate here, and we will continue to welcome those whom we invite.

But we will not tolerate violation of our sovereignty and we are determined to combat organised criminal attempts to land people illegally on our shores.

In summary, this is an important package of bills for both the government and the Australian people.

It will significantly reduce incentives for people to make hazardous voyages to Australian territories.

It will help ensure that life is made as difficult as possible for those criminals engaged in the people smuggling trade.

Most of all, it will ensure that the integrity of our maritime borders and our refugee program is maintained.

East Timor

On 20 September 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release in Dili following the swearing-in of the first all-Timorese Council of Ministers after the August 2001 elections in East Timor. Text of the release follows:

Today’s appointment of the Council of Ministers, and the election of a Constituent Assembly which it followed, mark crucial steps on the road to independence. The East Timorese leadership and people have won the admiration of the international community for the peaceful conduct of the 30 August poll and for the mature and inclusive approach they have taken to building a united nation. The United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor deserves to be commended for the role it has played in managing the recent election.

The newly appointed ministers face a challenging task ahead. I congratulate them, and the members of the Constituent Assembly, and wish them all the best in the important task of building an independent, just and prosperous East Timor. They can be assured of the continuing support of the Australian Government and people as they move their new nation towards full independence.

On 31 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement on the Question of East Timor to the United Nations Security Council Open Meeting. Extracts from that statement follow:

Today the Security Council has an opportunity to send an unequivocal signal to the people of East Timor and to the international community, of its continuing commitment to a successful transition process in East Timor. It is Australia’s firm view that this signal should take the form of a clear endorsement by the Council of the recommendations set out by the Secretary-General in his most recent report on UNTAET .

In his report, which Australia fully endorses, the Secretary-General has set out all of the elements required for an effective, timely and smooth planning process for the remainder of East Timor’s transition. He has presented us with a carefully considered, moderate and responsible plan for a phased process of downsizing. This should lead to a stable, democratic state in East Timor, with long-term development needs assisted by UN agencies and other donor assistance.

None of us want to see an open-ended UN presence in East Timor. Nevertheless, as the Council itself has said recently, there must be no exit without strategy. Accordingly the Council has a responsibility to ensure that the prospect of a successful transition is not jeopardised by a precipitate downsizing of the UN presence in any of the core areas outlined by the Secretary-General, or by inadequate resources and unreliable funding for a post-independence UN mission.

Through continued careful management, and by taking the right decisions at the right time, the Security Council has the capacity to ensure the successful completion of the UN’s mandate in East Timor, and the establishment of the sort of political and security environment we have all worked so hard to achieve.

Palestinians

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly concerning the situation in the Middle East. An extract of that statement relating to the Palestinian people follows:

Australia has consistently recognised the proper and legitimate right and aspiration of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We expect that a comprehensive, just and durable resolution of the region’s conflict necessarily will include the establishment of a viable state for the Palestinian people in accordance with the principles of resolution 242. The sooner that can be achieved along agreed boundaries, the better.

II. Recognition

Taiwan

On 21 August 2001, an Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Application of Non-Proliferation Assurances, done at Washington D.C. on 31 July 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the National Interest Analysis relating to Australia’s relationship with Taiwan follows:

Since Australia does not recognise Taiwan as a state, it is not possible to negotiate a bilateral safeguards agreement directly with Taiwan as Australia’s uranium export policy usually requires. Nonetheless, Australia recognises that Taiwan has legitimate energy needs and that it has chosen nuclear power as part of its energy supply mix. The proposed Agreement with the United States provides for Australian uranium to be enriched in the United States, after which it would be transferred to Taiwan. In this way, Australian uranium will be covered by nuclear safeguards agreements between Australia and the United States, and between the United States, Taiwan, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This arrangement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation commitments and the terms of Australia’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China in 1972.

III. Territory

Australia

On 17 September 2001, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Phillip Ruddock and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Mr Chris Ellison issued a joint press release concerning the Migration Amendment (Excision From Migration Zone) Bill 2001, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, and the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. Extracts from the release concerning excision of certain Australian territories follow:

The Migration Amendment (Excision From Migration Zone) Bill 2001 will excise certain Australian territories from the migration zone for purposes related to unauthorised arrivals. Any unauthorised arrival who arrives in an excised area after 2.00pm on 8 September will not be able to make an application for an Australian visa unless the Minister exercises his discretionary power.

This will allow the Commonwealth to undertake assessments for refugee status outside the migration zone without being compelled to issue a visa. People who are determined to be refugees can then apply to the Minister to use his public interest powers to lift the bar, or they can apply for a third country for resettlement.

UNTAET/East Timor

On 3 July 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a joint press release announcing a new Timor Sea Arrangement. Text of the press release follows:

We are very pleased to announce that Australia and East Timorese/United Nations (UNTAET) representatives have reached agreement on a new Timor Sea Arrangement to govern petroleum development in the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor. We (Mr Downer and Senator Minchin) will travel to Dili to initial and endorse the Arrangement with East Timor’s leaders on Thursday 5 July.

The key elements of the Arrangement are:

• deferral of delimitation of a permanent seabed boundary without prejudice to Australia’s and East Timor’s rights or entitlements;

• maintenance of the contractual terms of the existing petroleum/gas projects (Bayu-Undan, Greater Sunrise and Elang-Kakatua);

• Australian jurisdiction over the planned pipeline from the JPDA to Australia;

• unitisation of the Greater Sunrise field (which straddles the JPDA and an area under Australian jurisdiction) on the basis that 20 percent of the field lies within the JPDA and 80 percent of the field lies within Australian jurisdiction; and

• the new treaty will have a duration of 30 years.

Israel

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly concerning the situation in the Middle East. An extract of that statement follows:

We remain strongly committed to the territorial integrity of Israel, and the right of the people of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force, as affirmed in resolution 242. We are equally committed to the application of this principle to all states in the region.

IV. Aviation and Space Law

Air Services Agreements – Denmark, Norway and Sweden

On 27 February 2001, the Air Services Agreements between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark; the Government of the Kingdom of Norway; and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following is an extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis:

The Agreements provide for the airlines of the treaty partners to operate passenger and freight services between Australia and Scandinavia. This will facilitate tourism and trade through freight and passenger transportation and provide greater air travel options for Australian consumers.

Consultations with Scandinavia were undertaken following requests from Qantas and Ansett for the inter-governmental arrangements that are required to facilitate their entry to the Australia/Scandinavia air travel market. The provisions reached in the Agreements meet the commercial needs of airlines of all Parties and provide additional capacity to allow for further market growth. The Agreements reached are consistent with the policy of the Australian Government in seeking liberal outcomes.

Air Services Agreements – Pakistan, Samoa

On 27 February 2001, the Air Services Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, done at Islamabad on 7 February 1998, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Samoa relating to Air Services, done at Apia on 11 August 2000 were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts common to both accompanying National Interest Analyses follow:

The purpose of the treaty is to allow direct air services to operate between Australia and [Pakistan][Samoa], which will facilitate tourism and trade through freight and passenger transportation between the two countries and provide greater air travel options for Australian consumers.

The Agreement provides a framework for the operation of scheduled air services between Australia and [Pakistan][Samoa] by the designated airlines of both countries.

Satellite Telecommunications

On 21 August 2001, Amendments, done at Washington on 17 November 2000, to the Agreement and Operating Agreement Relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization ‘INTELSAT’ of 20 August 1971, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The proposed treaty action will formalise Australia’s acceptance of amendments to the foundation instruments of INTELSAT resulting from a decision of the Twenty Second Assembly of Parties (comprising Member States) on 1 April 1998 to restructure INTELSAT. From 18 July 2001, a new private corporation, Intelsat Ltd, will provide global telecommunications services on a fully commercial basis with a structure more able to participate in a competitive global market environment. A small intergovernmental organisation called International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (ITSO) will supervise Intelsat Ltd’s adherence to its public service obligations. The Australian Government agrees with the proposed privatisation of INTELSAT and its position reflects an extended process of consultation with the State and Territory Governments and other key stakeholders. The effective and efficient operation of Intelsat Ltd is of great importance to Australia because it remains an integral part of the national telecommunications system. The privatisation of INTELSAT is also in accord with the Government’s competition policy.

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space – Cooperation – Russian Federation

On 18 September 2001, an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Field of the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes, done at Canberra on 23 May 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The Agreement provides a treaty framework for collaboration in a broad range of scientific and industrial space projects with Russia. These will bring together the complementary capabilities of Australia and the Russian Federation in the space sector. Australia is seeking to develop its own space sector, with particular focus on the potential for commercial launch operations arising from our geographic and climatic circumstances and our stable political and economic conditions. The Russian Federation is recognised as one of the leading space-faring nations of the world, and is among the most advanced in launch technologies. An early focus under the Agreement will be collaboration in the development of commercial spaceports. Two proposed spaceports – the Asia Pacific Space Centre facility proposed for Christmas Island and the Spacelift facility proposed for Woomera – would use wholly Russian launch vehicles. The Agreement is necessary for both projects to proceed.

In this context, the Agreement is a critical step in facilitating the proposed Asia Pacific Space Centre and Spacelift projects, and any further projects that may emerge in the future. It provides that the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Russian Aviation and Space Agency may agree to involve other organisations in activities carried out within the framework of the Agreement (Article 3(2)). In this way, Australian industry may be authorised to cooperate in space activities involving Russian technology. Without the Agreement and the more detailed agreements or arrangements which will follow under it, the Russian Government would not allow the transfer of launch technology to Australia or Australian industry, blocking the development of such projects and depriving Australia of an opportunity to capture a share of the lucrative satellite launch market. Australia is competing with a number of other countries to host projects drawing on Russian technology.

Geostationary Orbit

On 21 August 2001, the Final Protocol and Partial Revision of the 1998 Radio Regulations, as incorporated in the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-2000), done at Istanbul on 2 June 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis concerning geostationary orbit follow:

Australia made one declaration at the time of signature that reflects Australia’s position that the geographical situation of particular countries does not support claims to any preferential rights to the geostationary orbit.

Space Debris

On 30 March 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning space debris. An extract of the release follows:

The New Zealand and Australian Foreign Ministers, in Santiago, Chile, for the Ministerial meeting of the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC), expressed their understanding of concerns raised by their Latin American colleagues in relation to the re-entry of space debris into the earth’s atmosphere.

The Ministers noted that the recent MIR re-entry into the South Pacific had been managed successfully. The Ministers also acknowledged the need for further consideration of the appropriate means of regulating the return of objects from outer space as a supplement to existing international rules. This could involve, for example, developing policy and practice and, if necessary, rules on issues such as prior notification, transparency and consultation with nations in the areas affected, as well as assurances on the nature of the material involved. Arrangements governing liability for any damage sustained would also need to be looked at.

The two Ministers also noted that such policies and practices would need to be consistent with existing international agreements, including those on hazardous wastes and protection of the ocean and marine environment.

V. Law of the Sea

Safety of Life at Sea

On 27 August 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard answered a question without notice from Ms Teresa Gambaro concerning the MV Tampa. Extract of the answer concerning safety of life at sea follows:

I think all members of the House will be aware of news reports indicating that a Norwegian vessel, the Tampa, which is a fairly large container vessel, took on board several hundred people from a vessel which had foundered in what I am told was the Indonesian search and rescue area of responsibility in area defined by international law as “the high seas”. Those souls were taken on board by the Norwegian vessel. The Norwegian vessel then intended, as I understand, to set sail for the nearest point of possible disembarkation, which was an Indonesian port by the name of Merak. I am also informed that preliminary arrangements had been made by the Indonesian authorities to receive these people on their disembarkation from the Norwegian vessel at Merak. Subsequently, so media reports indicate, and as testified to on the radio this morning by the captain of the Norwegian vessel, under duress from some of the people picked up, the captain changed his plans and an indication was evinced to sail to Australian waters.

We have communicated with the captain, and we have also communicated with the Indonesian and Norwegian governments. We have indicated to the captain that permission to land in Australia will not be granted to this vessel. We believe that there are special circumstances in this case, particularly the background that I have described, that justify the action taken by the government. We have told the Norwegian government and the Indonesian government that this is a matter to be resolved between the government of Indonesia and the government of Norway. It is, so I am told, a matter of international law that the ship’s master had an obligation, given the circumstances of the rescue of the people involved, to head for the nearest point of possible disembarkation, and that was an Indonesian port.

We have indicated to the ship’s captain – and we have also indicated this to the Norwegian authorities and to the Indonesian government – that Australia stands ready to provide any humanitarian assistance that may be required on the vessel, including the landing of food and medical supplies and the provision of a doctor or doctors or paramedics, if that is necessary. We have also indicated to the government of Indonesia that we would be prepared to make available financial assistance, either through an international agency or directly, to the government of Indonesia to assist the Indonesians in relation to the reception and processing of and caring for the people who have been taken on board the motor vessel Tampa.

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the law of the sea. Extracts from the statement relating to rescue at sea follow:

The obligation to assist persons in distress is a fundamental principle of the maritime community and it is one to which Australia is fully committed. As recent experiences around the world have indicated, however, it is not always as straightforward a task as one would wish, particularly where issues of sovereignty and illegal activities such as people trafficking are involved.

Additional complications have been introduced by large numbers of asylum seekers setting out in sub-standard ships, sometimes placing at risk their own lives, and possibly those of the rescuing crews, in order to force the rescuers to take them to a place of their choosing.

In this context, Norway made some assertions in its statement yesterday concerning the MV Tampa incident which require a response.

The rescue by the MV Tampa occurred outside the search and rescue region designated as being the responsibility of Australia. Beyond the issuing of a distress relay, Australia did not direct the rescue, responsibility for which was assumed by the Indonesian Rescue Coordination Centre. Australian Search and Rescue was advised by the Norwegian Rescue Coordination Centre that the rescue had been completed, that the vessel had resumed its voyage and was en route to Merak in Indonesia and that the Tampa had been in contact with Indonesian authorities. However we understand that, because of pressure from those rescued, the master turned the MV Tampa around and headed for Christmas Island.

Australia notes that the MV Tampa, which was carrying intended unauthorised arrivals, entered into Australian territorial waters surrounding Christmas Island despite an Australian direction that it not do so. It is relevant that Christmas Island has no port suitable for the landing of substantial numbers of people. Australian authorities were monitoring the situation on board the MV Tampa and, under the circumstances, decided that there was no requirement for the vessel to approach the Christmas Island port facility. Assistance was provided to those on board, including food and medical monitoring and attention.

Australia is fully aware of the obligations and traditions attaching to the rescue of those in distress at sea. Australia has abided by those obligations and traditions. Australia also is aware that circumstances such as those that arose in relation to the MV Tampa should not be able to be used as a means of entering the territory of a state unlawfully.

In this context Australia, like Norway, welcomes the IMO Secretary-General’s initiative to establish a cooperative interagency working group within the UN framework to develop a coordinated international approach to such issues. Australia reaffirms its full commitment to the ideals and aims of enhancing safety of life at sea, for all persons regardless of their circumstances.

Marine Environment

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning protection of the marine environment. Extracts from the statement follow:

Protection of the marine environment is a key priority for Australia, within waters under national jurisdiction, in our region and globally. The challenges are many, and include pollution – from land based sources, vessel based sources and dumping; unsustainable exploitation of fisheries resources – and damage from navigation activities, such as the introduction of invasive species through the discharge of ballast water from ships (see the Secretary-General’s report on Oceans and Law of the Sea of March 2001, A/56/58). Australia’s national oceans policy, launched in 1998, embraces strategies to protect the marine environment which take an integrated or multiple use approach to ocean management. Australia’s National Oceans Office, established last year, provides the institutional backing to oversee implementation of the oceans policy.

United Nations Informal Consultation Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the marine environment. Extracts from the statement relating to the United Nations Informal Consultation Process follow:

Australia is pleased that protection and preservation of the marine environment and integrated oceans management will be taken up by the next UN Informal Consultative Process relating to oceans and law of the sea. The informal consultative process has been a very positive step forward for the United Nations in its treatment of practical aspects of law of the sea and oceans issues. It has quickly become a forum for States to discuss, in a detailed and practical manner, a range of law of the sea and oceans issues, and to facilitate cooperation and coordination between the many UN programmes and institutions which have some responsibility for these issues. We welcome the fact that even those states which expressed some initial doubts about the value of the initiative have participated fully and constructively in the process.

Fisheries – Treaty on Fisheries between Pacific Island States and the United States of America

On 6 March 2001, amendments to the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the United States of America were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The Treaty subject to the proposed treaty action establishes a regional fisheries access arrangement for United States flagged fishing vessels (‘US fishing vessels’) in a defined area of the Pacific. There are presently seventeen Parties to the Treaty, which entered into force for Australia on 15 June 1988. The Treaty is administered by the Forum Fisheries Agency established under the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention of 1979. The Treaty recognises the importance of fisheries located in and around the exclusive economic zones (‘EEZ’) or fisheries zones of Pacific Island Parties and aims to maximise the benefits flowing to those parties from the development of fisheries resources. To that end, the Treaty regulates fishing by US fishing vessels in the “Treaty area” comprising parts of the high seas of the central and western Pacific and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island Parties to the Treaty. In the case of Australia this includes a part of the Australian Fishing Zone (‘AFZ’) in the Coral Sea.

Australia also has a broader interest in the development of fisheries in the Pacific region. In this respect, securing the proper management of stocks fished under the Treaty such as skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna will be essential to ensure the continued well being of the Australian fishing industry.

The Treaty is widely regarded as setting a benchmark for responsible fisheries access arrangements in the region. Australia’s continued participation in the Treaty provides an important forum for Australia to advance its interests and contribute to the economic wellbeing and stability of the Pacific region.

Fisheries – Southern Blue Fin Tuna

On 29 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the relationship between Australia and Japan in relation to Southern Blue Fin Tuna. Extracts from the release follow:

Mr Downer noted with satisfaction the constructive and productive efforts both countries had recently made within the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) to build a more effective fisheries management regime and to resolve differences on this issue. He said he was sure the CCSBT was now better placed to effectively manage southern bluefin tuna stocks well into the future.

Mr Downer said he was also very pleased to be able to announce the Australian Government’s immediate lifting of the bans currently in place on Japanese fishing vessels visiting Australian ports.

Fisheries – United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning fish stocks. Extracts from the statement relating to the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement follow:

Australia welcomes the news that the UN Fish Stocks Agreement will enter into force next month. This Agreement, which implements key provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides a framework for sustainable conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks and straddling stocks. The entry into force of the Agreement requires a fundamental change in the way fishing activity has been conducted in many parts of the world. No longer can vessels fish for stocks on the high seas until they collapse. No longer can fishing vessels take high levels of non-target species in the course of their fishing. No longer should short term gain be sought at the price of long term survival of a stock or a species.

It is crucial that all states engaged in fishing activities become parties to the Agreement. This will ensure the effective cooperation between coastal states and fishing states necessary to ensure the long term sustainable conservation and management of the world’s fisheries resources.

Fisheries – Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning fish stocks. Extracts from the statement relating to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention follow:

In the same spirit, Australia strongly supports the new Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention which has the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as its basis. A preparatory conference process is now under way to establish the regional commission which will manage much of the western and central Pacific’s tuna resources. We urge all distant water fishing states which participated in the negotiation of this convention to work constructively with members of the Pacific Island forum group and others in this preparatory conference process, so that we ensure that the resources of the Pacific are conserved and managed for the long-term benefit of all.

Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. An extract of the statement follows:

One of the great threats to the long term sustainability of the world’s fisheries resources is the rise of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Therefore Australia was pleased to play a leading role in the development of an International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. While the plan, adopted by the FAO in February, places some emphasis on the flag states to control fishing activities of its vessels, it also recognises that other States should also act to prevent illegal fishing –coastal states, port states, states of nationality, and market states. The Plan requires States to devise national plans of action to combat illegal fishing by 2004. Australia is well advanced in developing its national plan, and urges other states to take similar steps.

Whaling – South Pacific Whale Sanctuary

On 25 July 2001, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the issue of the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary at the 53rd Meeting of the International Whaling Commission in London. Extracts from the address follow:

On behalf of Australia and the other co-sponsors, I commend to you the proposal introduced by New Zealand to amend the Schedule [International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946], and establish a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. We agree that this will complement the Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean Sanctuaries.

… there is clear evidence from the information provided to the Scientific Committee that, over the past two centuries of commercial whaling, whale populations in the South Pacific region collapsed … The evidence suggests that populations are only beginning to recover from this massive over-exploitation. Australia, for example, has monitored the recovery of east Australian humpbacks (a species which the South Pacific Sanctuary will protect) for 20 years. They are recovering, but their population remains at a mere fraction of its natural level.

Australia and New Zealand have consulted extensively with the countries of the South Pacific. These consultations have revealed a regional consensus in favour of the proposal. An encouraging amount of goodwill continues to develop across the South Pacific for the Sanctuary.

VI. International Economic Law

Films Co-Production Agreement – Germany

On 23 May 2001, the Films Co-Production Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, done at Canberra on 17 January 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The purpose of the Agreement is to foster cultural and technical development and exchange by facilitating international films co-productions with the Federal Republic of Germany. The Agreement will open up new markets for Australian film and enable a creative and technical interchange between film personnel. It also has the potential to increase the output of high quality productions through the sharing of equity investment.

The Agreement will help to ensure that an overall balance is achieved in the employment of nationals of both parties in major creative, craft and technical positions related to film coproductions under the Agreement.

Free Trade Agreements – Singapore

On 8 February 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore. Extracts from the release follow:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed the strong support from Australian business and State and Territory governments for the Coalition Government’s initiative to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with Singapore.

“It is clear that industry and State and Territory representatives are enthusiastic about Australia pursuing a comprehensive FTA with Singapore,” Mr Vaile said.

“We received strong support for the Government’s objective to make the Australia-Singapore FTA a cutting-edge agreement, increasing economic ties across the full spectrum of bilateral trade.

“I assured our industries and State and Territory representatives that the Australian negotiators will take a very hard-nosed approach to ensure that the FTA delivers in the national interest.”

Key issues discussed in the consultations included trade opportunities in services, domestic regulatory barriers in Singapore, mutual recognition and harmonisation of standards and competition policy.

Free Trade Agreements – United States of America

On 26 June 2001, in the Senate, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question without notice from Senator Brown concerning a possible Free Trade Agreement with the United States of America. Extracts from the answer follow:

Australia is interested in a free trade agreement with the United States to expand access within the United States for Australian goods. We are a country that is dependent upon trade. We have an opportunity when addressing the United States, the world’s largest market. We are all aware of instances where we have been inhibited in that market through trade restrictions. The Australian government believes it sensible to see if we can have those restraints withdrawn or reduced. To start a dialogue with the United States towards that objective would have been something that I believe all Australians would applaud. That is the purpose of the government’s policy.

The objective would be to reduce as much as possible all existing restraints upon Australian trade into the United States. That is the way in which we grow our economy and create wealth to be used for good purposes in Australia such as in health, education and so forth.

… the negotiation is at an early stage. All issues will be on the table for negotiation. Australia’s objective is to expand our trade opportunities in the United States.

Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement – United Arab Emirates

On 21 August 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning an Australia-United Arab Emirates Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. The text of the release follows:

Australia and the United Arab Emirates have agreed on a text for an Australia-United Arab Emirates Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced today.

“This Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement should encourage investment between the two countries. The oil rich UAE has a large pool of investment capital and I would like to see more Australian ventures winning that business,” Mr Vaile said.

“This agreement signals a further deepening of Australia’s relationships in the Middle East and with the UAE in particular.

“There are also significant opportunities for Australian commercial involvement in the UAE.

“The UAE offers a strong, soundly managed economy with significant export and investment opportunities for Australian companies.

“The UAE is an ideal conduit to neighbouring markets such as Iran, the Indian Sub-Continent and the newly emerging African markets, as well as to the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt.”

Mutual Recognition Agreements – Singapore

On 27 February 2001, the Mutual Recognition Agreement on Conformity Assessment between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

Having considered a number of options to address the problem of technical and regulatory barriers to trade, and their impediment to Australia’s trade and economic performance, the Government decided that a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Conformity Assessment with Singapore would improve the existing bilateral trade and investment linkages, enhance Australia’s standing as a viable trading partner in the region and provide benefits to the Australian economy, all at relatively little cost.

The Agreement will enable conformity assessments (ie testing, inspection and certification) of products and of manufacturers of products intended for export to the other Party’s territory to be undertaken in the country of export. This would generate substantial reductions in non-tariff barriers by enabling Australian producers to have their products and/or manufacturers fully assessed in Australia for conformity to Singapore’s standards and legal requirements and acceptability to the Singapore regulatory body prior to export. Australian industry has indicated that there are good prospects for enhanced growth in trade if regulatory barriers to entry, such as those mentioned above, can be reduced or removed.

The provisions of the Agreement are consistent with the approach to conformity assessment taken in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (‘TBT Agreement’), to which Australia is a party.

Taxation and Trade – Timor Gap

On 1 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin issued a joint press release concerning the Timor Gap. Extracts from the press release follow:

We are disappointed by the decision announced today by Phillips Petroleum and its co-venturers to defer the decision on the proposed pipeline from the Bayu-Undan project to Darwin.

The deferral arises from uncertainty about the legal and fiscal regime to apply in the Timor Gap as a result of tax proposals put forward by UNTAET/East Timor. Australia shares many of industries’ concerns.

It is unfortunate that just hours after we agreed the Timor Sea Arrangement in Dili, UNTAET/East Timor announced that it would use its taxation powers to recover up to an additional US$500 million in tax from the companies.

Under the Arrangement, the terms of the existing contracts are to be preserved. The core reason for preserving those terms was to maintain the existing financial basis for investment underpinning the current and planned projects. It is important that this commitment be adhered to.

The preservation of those terms was part of the total package in which Australia generously agreed to a 90:10 split of government revenues in favour of East Timor.

The companies and UNTAET/East Timor have been holding separate talks on the fiscal arrangements since we endorsed the Timor Sea Arrangement in Dili in early July.

It is important that East Timor reaffirms their earlier commitment regarding the fiscal and taxation policies that would apply to the companies.

The Australian Government is committed to continuing to work with UNTAET/East Timor and industry to ensure that the Timor Sea Arrangement is successfully implemented to ensure the benefits from Timor Sea gas developments are realised.

It is important for future investments that there be commercial confidence and certainty in East Timor.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – Legal infrastructure

On 18 October 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Extracts from the release follow:

I today welcome APEC’s increasing interest in the Strengthening Economic Legal Infrastructure initiative to build business and investor confidence.

Strengthening market policies, such as regulatory and institutional reform, are critical to maximising and sustaining the benefits from globalisation. They also help ensure economies are better able to deal with economic and financial shocks in the future, and are able to take advantage of opportunities offered by advances in information and communications technology. These efforts are particularly important in this time of slower economic growth.

Australia has been actively involved in a number of APEC projects on strengthening markets, including a jointly initiated Australia-Vietnam e-commerce legal infrastructure workshop. The workshop, which will focus on the development of e-commerce legal policies and frameworks, will be held in conjunction with the APEC Telecommunications and Information Working Group Meeting in March 2002 in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Australia was also closely involved in the preparation of the APEC

report, Towards Better Company Accounting and Financial Reporting in APEC, which promotes high-quality internationally acceptable standards of accounting and disclosure and auditing practices by business enterprises, taking into account the needs and diversity of developing member economies.

Closer Economic Partnership Agreement between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand

On 16 September 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning a closer economic partnership agreement between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia and New Zealand. Extracts from the press release follow:

“Ministers have endorsed a Framework which advances the development of the Closer Economic Partnership between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand, that we agreed to implement last year. This agreement will assist Australia in continuing to build upon its exports to ASEAN, which hit a record $A15.1 billion last year, a sharp increase of 35 per cent over the previous year,” Mr Vaile said following the annual consultations between Ministers from the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Agreement(CER).

“I am very pleased that we have been able to agree to this Framework for a Closer Economic Partnership, building on six years of work on trade facilitation and economic cooperation between our two regions. For the first time, ASEAN and CER have agreed to formalise their economic relationship in order to further promote trade and investment flows in the region. We have also agreed on an initial work program in a broad range of areas including customs, e-commerce and small and medium enterprises.”

Mr Vaile also announced Australian funding of a new $3.5 million regional initiative to build the internal and border capacities of ASEAN against pests and diseases.

“This initiative will strengthen ASEAN countries’ capacities to manage their own pests and diseases, and in this way strengthen Australia’s forward defences,” Mr Vaile said

Mr Vaile and his regional counterparts also agreed to establish an AFTA-CER business advisory council. The business council will brief ASEAN, Australian and New Zealand Ministers during their annual consultations on business views on the Closer Economic Partnership.

Development Assistance – International Microfinance Initiative

On 1 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning Australia’s aid contributions to the international microfinance initiative. An extract from the release follows:

Microfinance is an important tool in the efforts of the Australian Government’s overseas aid program to assist developing countries at a grass-roots level. It provides the poor in developing countries with access – usually in the form of loans – to the small but useful sums of money needed to start micro-enterprises and reduce their poverty, or to deal with emergencies and hedge against further poverty.

Microfinance projects often target women. Where women are the source of increased household income, the standard of living for the family often improves noticeably. This can also help women’s status and power in the family and community.

Australia supports a number of microfinance projects in countries such as Vietnam, the Philippines Bangladesh, Nepal, China and Papua New Guinea.

The decision to increase microfinance expenditure from $6.4 million in 1997-98 to approximately $13 million in 2001-02 recognises the positive impact microfinance is having in advancing Australia’s national interest through the reduction of poverty in developing nations, particularly in the Asia Pacific region.

Mutual Acceptance Agreement on Oenological Practices

On 20 December 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning the signing of Mutual Acceptance Agreement on Oenological Practices by Australia. Extracts from the release follow:

Mr Vaile said the agreement simplified and clarified the regulations applying to trade in wine between member countries.

“The new agreement ensures that wines produced and approved for consumption in Australia will also be acceptable to our trading partners, as long as legitimate health and safety considerations are met,” said Mr Vaile.

“It also means that Australian wine exports to key markets such as the United States and New Zealand can continue to grow without impediment from unnecessary red tape.

“The wine industry is one of Australia’s outstanding export successes, combining our agricultural, winemaking and marketing expertise. Exports for 2000-01 were up 24% to $1.75 billion, and we dominate major markets like the UK.”

Mr Vaile said the agreement rewarded innovation and technical excellence in wine making because it enabled wine-making innovations pioneered by Australia and other “New World” countries to be more readily adopted.

“The agreement contrasts markedly with the European Union method of individually examining and approving each and every wine-making practice involved, even if there are no health and safety implications,” said Mr Vaile.

Negotiations for an agreement to simplify labelling requirements between the five member countries of the New World Wine Producers’ Group were also launched at the Toronto meeting. Mr Vaile said a labelling agreement had been identified by the Australian wine industry as the next key trade facilitation initiative.

World Trade Organization – Davos Statement

On 28 January 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s support for the WTO Directors-General Davos Statement. Extracts from the release follow:

We welcome the “Davos Statement” calling for greater political and business support for the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This initiative by three past WTO Directors General highlights the urgent need to re-focus the WTO on its core trade liberalising agenda.

We share the concerns expressed in the Davos Statement that governments are asking too much of the WTO while doing too little to explain the immense benefits provided by the system of multilateral trade rules.

We welcome the clear statement by the former Directors General that labour issues did not belong in the WTO. This has been a long-held position of the Australian Government.

We also share the view of the authors of the Davos Statement that, while social issues could not be addressed by the WTO, concerns about the social consequences of globalisation were legitimate. But many of the proposed responses, such as reversion to protectionism were not. Raising trade barriers would only harm developing countries and lower incomes in both developing and developed countries.

We are interested in the initiative proposed in the Davos Statement to establish a new international commission to provide a forum in which to discuss objectively the issues of concern and develop appropriate responses as necessary. We are willing to discuss this proposal further to see how it could be developed.

World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations

On 26 April 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a joint press release concerning the appointment of Australia’s Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization. Extracts from the release follow:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, today announced the appointment of Mr David Spencer
as Australian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

One of the WTO’s most important functions is to provide a forum for multilateral trade negotiations. The WTO remains the primary vehicle for Australia to advance its interests in achieving greater market access and secure trading conditions for Australian exporters. Open markets remain crucial to Australia’s economic prosperity and jobs.

Mr Spencer will take up his position a few months before the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference is held in Qatar in November. Australia has benefited substantially from successive rounds of multilateral trade negotiations and the Government is strongly committed to the launch of a new market-access focused trade round in Qatar.

World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – new round

On 15 November 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

issued a press release concerning a new trade round. Extracts from the release follow:

At the conclusion of five days of talks, the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha decided to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations according to Trade Minister Mark Vaile.

“The launch of a new round has been the Coalition Government’s key trade priority. This result in Doha is particularly satisfying following the disappointment in Seattle two years ago. The new negotiations will lead to new export opportunities and increased economic growth and job opportunities,” Mr Vaile said.

“Australian farmers, workers, businesses and consumers stand to gain significantly from the commencement of negotiations early next year. Estimates put the likely economic benefits to Australia of a 50 percent cut in global protection in excess of $7 billion annually.

“The Cairns Group of agricultural exporters, which Australia chairs, played a critical role at Doha in building support for an ambitious agricultural mandate.

“The Declaration’s strong language to phase out export subsidies, achieve major reductions in domestic agricultural support levels and secure significant improvement in market access is a tremendous outcome for Australia. It will go a long way to ensuring agriculture and processed foods receive the long overdue attention they deserve in international trade negotiations.

“The text on environment underscores the importance of sustainable development to the international trading system. I particularly welcome the outcome on negotiations to reduce fisheries subsidies. I am confident that the proposed negotiations on the relationship between the WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environment agreements can be conducted in a way that does not undermine WTO rules and disciplines.”

Mr Vaile welcomed the commitment to negotiations in the services and manufactures sector. Together with agriculture, they were key objectives for Australia reflecting their importance to the Australian economy and the need to reduce international trade barriers to open markets and to provide new export opportunities.

“Ministers also reaffirmed the right of members under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which Australia signed in 1995, to regulate the supply of services as they see fit,” Mr Vaile said.

“Australia also helped forge consensus on the difficult issue of access to medicines, which recognises the importance of addressing public health concerns within the framework of WTO rules. Developing countries will benefit from the new negotiations on agriculture, which was another key priority for them.”

World Trade Organization – General Agreement on Trade in Services – right to regulate

On 15 November 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release reaffirming the right of nations to regulate in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. An extract of the release follows:

The Doha Ministerial Declaration re-affirmed the right of WTO Members to regulate, and introduce new regulations on, the supply of services. The declaration’s statement on services essentially restates the principles already enshrined in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In making this commitment, governments have essentially re-affirmed the balance in the GATS agreement between the benefits of progressive liberalisation of international services trade, and the sovereign right of members to regulate their domestic service sectors. The right of governments to make policy decisions on essential public services should not be constrained by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Mr Vaile emphasised that under the GATS it is up to governments to decide whether and to what extent they will open up specific service sectors to foreign competition, and the extent to which foreign suppliers should be afforded the same treatment (eg access to subsidies) as domestic suppliers. Australia cannot be forced under the GATS to open up service sectors to foreign competition or to provide foreign suppliers with the same treatment as domestic suppliers. In participating in these GATS negotiations Australia will pursue opportunities to expand our exports markets for services such as tourism, transport, finance and communications, while ensuring that our basic national interests are not compromised.

World Trade Organization – Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Health

On 15 November 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning the World Trade Organization Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Health. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia welcomes the declaration on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and public health. The declaration reinforces the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement, such as parallel importation and compulsory licensing, both of which are vital tools to help developing countries gain access to affordable medicines. It confirms that TRIPS is part of the solution, not the problem.

Ministers’ agreement to adopt the separate declaration shows that the WTO is able to respond to the genuine concerns of developing countries on public health issues, and to contribute to wider national and international action to address this crucial social issue. It also reinforces the legitimacy of the WTO and provides further evidence of its ability to take account of valid global civil society concerns.

World Trade Organization – Disputes – Korea – beef

On 23 April 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning exports of beef to Korea. Extracts from the press release follows:

Korea has agreed to make its beef import measures WTO-consistent by 10 September, meaning a potential $200 million a year boost to Australian beef exporters …

This agreement means Australian meat exporters now can plan future, expanded exports to Korea with certainty.

“Australia and the United States successfully challenged 12 measures applying to imported beef in Korea, Australia’s third largest market for beef,” Mr Vaile said.

“Korea has also agreed to consult on any replacement measures. Australia has registered its concerns about Korea introducing new forms of discrimination in the market place. Australia reserves its right to challenge any such measures through special accelerated WTO dispute provisions.”

Mr Vaile welcomed Korea’s action in eliminating the majority of the discriminatory measures, but said two key areas of discrimination remained – the dual retail system for domestic and imported beef, and discriminatory record keeping requirements.

“Those measures have had significant impact on Australia’s beef sales to Korea. For instance, under the present dual retail system, there are only around 5,000 retail butchers licensed to sell foreign beef, compared to 45,000 butcher shops selling domestic beef. Australia has forcefully registered its concerns that Korea should avoid introducing any new forms of discrimination,” Mr Vaile said.

“The Government has worked very closely with the Australian beef industry and will continue to do so to ensure that Australia’s commercial interests are given full account during the implementation period and in any future action.”

Mr Vaile welcomed the close cooperation between Australia and the United States on the dispute. “This outcome demonstrates our desire to work closely with the United States on agricultural trade liberalisation. The Korea beef outcome illustrates the contribution the WTO dispute settlement system can make to delivering benefits to our agricultural exporters,” Mr Vaile said.

World Trade Organization – Disputes – United States of America – lamb

On 2 May 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning the World Trade Organization Appellate Body ruling on the United States measures against Australian lamb exports. Extracts from the release follow:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile has welcomed the ruling by the World Trade Organisation’s Appellate Body that the United States ’ import restrictions on lamb meat are illegal, saying it is vindication of the Government’s action in challenging the US measures.

“The Appellate Body has upheld Australia’s arguments and the outcome is a comprehensive endorsement of our approach. It is an excellent outcome for Australia and for Australian lamb meat exporters”.

“Australia expects the US Administration to take action to comply with these WTO rulings as quickly as possible. A delay in compliance would only result in further penalty to Australian lamb meat exporters, who have already had to live with these measures for almost two years,” Mr Vaile said.

“Taken with the recent WTO decision on Korea’s beef import restrictions, this decision on lamb confirms the value of the WTO dispute settlement system and underlines the Government’s commitment to using the system to fully protect and advance Australia’s interests.”

On 15 November 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile issued a press release concerning the removal of restrictions of Australian lamb exports by the United States. Text of the release follows:

“Today … the US is removing its illegal restrictions on Australian exports,” Trade Minister Mark Vaile said today.

“This outcome vindicates the strong stance the Government and industry have taken to prosecute our trade rights in the WTO’s dispute settlement system,” Mr Vaile said.

“The outcome shows the value of rules-based international trade for Australia. Our interests will be even further advanced in the new round of negotiations agreed on 14 November in Doha.”

“Now that the market is free again, our farmers and processors can capitalise on their previous success to grow their exports to the lucrative US market.”

VII. Individuals

Human Rights – National institutions

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia has a strong record of practical commitment to human rights. This is why we are committed to supporting good governance and national human rights institution-building – a commitment we have demonstrated here in Geneva and, more importantly, in the field. We strongly support the efforts of the Australian HREOC [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission] in developing a network of human rights institutions in our own region, through the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions.

Human Rights – Civil and political rights – mandatory detention

On 15 March 2001, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a press release to announce the lodgement of Australia’s response to a complaint to the United Nations on mandatory detention laws. An extract from the release follows:

The Government today lodged its response to a communication submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning the detention of R under the Northern Territory’s Sentencing Act.

Australia’s response to the communication challenges both its admissibility and its merits.

The communication alleges that the application of the Northern Territory mandatory detention laws to an individual, known as “R”, places Australia in breach of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR. In addition to arguing that the communication does not meet the admissibility requirements of the Covenant, Australia’s response denies that the communication establishes that there has been any breach by Australia of its obligations under the ICCPR.

The Human Rights Committee is responsible for monitoring compliance by countries with their international legal obligations under the ICCPR. It is not a court and its views do not constitute binding judgments.

The question is not whether the Federal Government or the Committee agrees with mandatory detention laws as a matter of policy. The only question for consideration is whether the application of those laws in particular circumstances of R’s case places Australia in breach of the ICCPR. That is the question that the Government’s response addresses.

I understand that counsel for R will now be provided with an opportunity to comment on the Government’s submission before the matter is considered by the Human Rights Committee. The Committee must first decide whether R’s allegations meet certain criteria, that allows the Committee to examine the complaint, before considering the merits of the allegations. Australia argues both that R’s allegations do not meet those criteria and that there has been no breach of the ICCPR

in R’s case.

Human Rights – Labour

On 23 May 2001, the withdrawal of ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No 57: Convention Concerning Hours of Work on Board Ship and Manning, done at Geneva on 24 October 1936; ILO Convention No 76: Convention Concerning Wages, Hours of Work on Board Ship and Manning, done at Seattle on 29 June 1946; ILO Convention No 93: Convention Concerning Wages, Hours of Work on Board Ship and Manning (revised 1949), done at Geneva on 18 June 1949; ILO Convention No 109: Convention Concerning Wages, Hours of Work on Board Ship and Manning (revised 1958), done at Geneva on 14 May 1958 were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

Australia has been a member of the ILO since its establishment in 1919 and has ratified 57 out of the ILO’s 183 Conventions. 50 of these Conventions remain in force for Australia. If the international labour standards promulgated by the ILO are to continue to be both effective and relevant, member States must be able to consider and review their ratification of out of date and irrelevant Conventions and take appropriate action, including the withdrawal of instruments of ratification.

It is appropriate to withdraw Australia’s instruments of ratification for these four Conventions as they have not come into force, and are unlikely ever to come into force given that they were adopted at least four decades ago. This action will demonstrate that Australia does not support the retention of these Conventions in the international labour code.

On 23 May 2001, the denunciation of the ILO Convention No 15: Convention fixing the Minimum Age for the Admission of Young Persons to Employment as Trimmers or Stokers, done at Geneva on 11 November 1921; and the ILO Convention No 21: Convention concerning the Simplification of the Inspection of Emigrants on Board Ship, done at Geneva on 5 June 1926 were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The ILO has “shelved” Conventions 15 and 21 which means that it does not promote their ratification or enforce reporting responsibilities. The shelving of the Conventions is an acknowledgment that the ILO considers them to be out of date and irrelevant to current circumstances. Although the ILO no longer supervises Australia’s application of these Conventions, they remain subject to the possibility of complaints and representations concerning failure to implement their provisions. Denunciation of these Conventions would clarify Australia’s legal position. Denunciation would also express support for the ILO’s shelving of the two Conventions and demonstrate Australian support for any future ILO decision to abrogate the Conventions.

Human Rights – Racial discrimination – World Conference against Racism

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement relating to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance follow:

Australia welcomes the recognition of the human rights implications of intolerance in preparations for the forthcoming World Conference against Racism and by establishing it as a focus of this year’s Special Debate in this Commission. We are determined to engage positively with the Conference and hope to contribute significantly to its outcomes.

One of the worst manifestations of intolerance is ethnic and intercommunal conflict. We have seen appalling examples of this in recent years in the Balkans, in parts of Africa and elsewhere. Australia’s own region, like others, has also experienced a worrying increase in intercommunal tensions, albeit on a different scale.

On 10 September 2001, a closing statement was delivered for the Australian Delegation, to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Extracts from the statement relating to the adoption of the report of the Conference follows:

Australia is unequivocal in its opposition to racism in all its forms and is committed to strong action at all levels to combat it, both domestically and internationally, and this was reflected in the approach we took to this World Conference.

We regret therefore that far too much of our time has been consumed by bitter, divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advance the cause of combating racism. This has been particularly evident in respect of the debate about the Middle East. Despite the great efforts of many delegations, including that of Australia, to achieve a balanced text, the references to the Middle East contain language which will do nothing to achieve greater peace in that troubled region – and nothing to advance the objectives of the Conference.

The debate on many other issues also has been polarised and recriminatory. These exchanges were the very antithesis of the objectives of the Conference and deeply disappointed many Government and non-Government participants who had had such high hopes for the Conference.

… we have some specific reservations on the text we are about to adopt … In relation to the second paragraph 5 of your text on the Middle East, my delegation believes that this paragraph deals with a political situation, and has no place in the outcomes of the World Conference which is on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

On paragraph 7 of your text on the Middle East, my delegation believes that this language undermines the agreements reached between Israel and the PLO, as representatives of the Palestinian people, which aim to achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem, in accordance with relevant UN resolutions, through direct negotiations to resolve all outstanding final status issues.

… Australia is a country whose governance and strong democratic traditions and institutions derive directly from its colonial history. In relation to your text on the past, we therefore express our serious concerns at the use of the same language in paragraphs 11 and 116 to condemn colonialism as is used in paragraph 12 to condemn apartheid and genocide.

On 10 September 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock issued a joint press release concerning the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Extracts from the release follow:

We welcome the adoption by the World Conference Against Racism of a Declaration and Program of Action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Australia is unequivocal in its opposition to racism in all its forms. We join with the World Conference in condemning the scourge of racism and supporting strong action at all levels to combat it, both domestically and internationally.

We welcome a number of positive outcomes from the Conference, including language on indigenous issues and on the benefits of cultural diversity, national human rights institutions and human rights education as key elements in the global fight against racism.

The positive outcomes of the Conference should be protected and nurtured. It is the responsibility of all of us, governments and citizens alike, in Australia and globally, to take forward the best of the exchanges in Durban in a forward looking and constructive spirit.

Human Rights – Indigenous peoples

During the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (19 March to 27 April 2001) a statement was delivered for the Australian delegation on indigenous issues. Extracts from that statement follow:

Australia is a society that takes pride in and draws strength from its cultural diversity, including the unique culture of our indigenous peoples. Australia’s vision is founded on the principles of mutual respect and tolerance, and a commitment to active protection and promotion of human rights for all. As such, Australia unequivocally condemns racism and racial discrimination and supports international action that promotes awareness and understanding of this scourge and advances measures that combat and prevent its occurrence.

An important development in the fight against racism has been the increased international consideration given to the situation of indigenous peoples and acknowledgement of the disadvantage they face. In this context, Australia supports the World Conference Against Racism as a timely opportunity to consider constructive, forward-looking approaches to combating racism and to indigenous issues …

The Australian Government’s commitment to working closely with the UN on racism and indigenous issues is also underlined by the visit to Australia this month, at the invitation of the Australian Government, by the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Mr Maurice Glele-Ahanhanzo. We look forward to working closely with the Special Rapporteur during his visit on issues related to his mandate.

Australia supports the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People as a means to promote the rights of the world’s indigenous peoples. A key focus on the decade has been the work to develop a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia recognises the importance of a Declaration to indigenous people around the world and remains firmly committed to developing a suitable and effective instrument by the end of the Decade in 2004. We urge all participants of the relevant Working Group to work together to achieve this goal.

The establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is another important focus of efforts during the Decade. Australia supports the establishment of an appropriately representative and accountable body that can better coordinate UN activity on indigenous issues. Although ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council] Resolution 2000/22 reflects the broad agreement on the establishment of the Forum, many important details, including on funding, require further discussion. In this context, Australia believes that the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, whose mandate overlaps that of the Forum, must be dissolved so as to avoid the two bodies operating in parallel. Australia stands ready to participate in any discussions that will address these issues and facilitate the efficient and effective establishment of the Permanent Forum. Until the Permanent Forum is established, we consider it premature to establish any new mechanism in this area, such as a Special Rapporteur on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples. We see no need for such a mechanism and consider that to establish it would divert valuable time and energy away from the work required to establish the Permanent Forum.

Australia’s approach to indigenous issues at the international level complements our firm commitment to addressing indigenous disadvantage at the domestic level. The Australian Government’s key priority is to ensure that Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people share equally in the prosperity of our nation. Australia’s indigenous people enjoy the same human rights and freedoms as all Australians, and Australia’s extensive system of anti-discrimination legislation and special programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are designed to ensure that they are able to exercise these rights from a position of strength. Through indigenous controlled bodies such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), Australia’s indigenous people are empowered to exercise meaningful control over many aspects of their affairs. ATSIC administers over half of the Australian Government’s expenditure on indigenous-specific programs.

Like many other countries, Australia is confronting the legacy of its treatment of indigenous peoples. Past policies often failed to recognise the significance of indigenous culture and resulted in the marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the social, cultural and economic development of mainstream Australian society. The Australian Government is committed to addressing indigenous disadvantage which we acknowledge as remaining unacceptable …

Over the last decade, there has been a formal process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians which has generated an on-going people’s movement. The Australian Government believes that the pursuit of practical means to improve the well-being and happiness of indigenous Australians and raising living standards to levels enjoyed and expected by all Australians will be critical to the achievement of lasting reconciliation. We are committed to maintaining and strengthening broad based support for reconciliation and for proper respect to be shown towards Australia’s first peoples.

Australia’s policy has always been one of promoting human rights through practical deeds and actions, rather than simply words. To this end, Australia believes that the World Conference Against Racism and the programs of the Indigenous Decade provide a valuable opportunity for all nations to demonstrate their commitment to addressing problems common to all indigenous populations. We therefore encourage all states in conjunction with their own indigenous peoples to contribute constructively to discussions at the World Conference and the on-going work in the context of the Decade to better recognise, promote and protect indigenous peoples’ human rights.

Human Rights – Children

On 26 October 2001, Senator Rosemary Crowley delivered a statement on behalf of the Australian delegation at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the rights of the child. Extracts from the statement follow:

While much has been achieved, particularly in the development of an international infrastructure for the promotion and protection of the human rights of children, we are still a long way from the ultimate goal of a world fit for all children.

The development and implementation of further effective measures to improve the situation of children must take a central position on all of our agendas. As highlighted in the UNICEF Report on the State of the World’s Children 2002, “investing in children is the wisest investment a country can make”. As a strong supporter of the promotion and protection of the human rights of children, Australia has welcomed the convening of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children. The Special Session will provide a unique opportunity for us all not only to reaffirm and restate our commitment to improving the situation of children but to focus on practical means for achieving those objectives of the World Summit on Children that are yet to be met.

The Special Session as originally scheduled would have been the highlight of our efforts for children this year. Its postponement was the only appropriate course of action in the circumstances, but the preparatory work done so far will serve us well when we are able to hold the Special Session. Australia would like to take the opportunity to thank UNICEF in particular for their work in this respect.

Human Rights – Children – commercial and sexual exploitation

On 24 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release to announce Australia becoming party to the Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography An extract from the release follows:

Australia’s signature of the Optional Protocol
and its participation the World Congress reflects the Government’s belief that protection of our children must remain high on the international agenda.

Human Rights – Children – child soldiers

On 6 February 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams responded to a question on notice from Mr Robert McClelland on Australia’s human rights obligations. An excerpt concerning Australia’s position on child soldiers follows:

The issue of the minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities was canvassed during the negotiations for the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. The Government supported the view that 17 years should be the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into the armed forces and 18 years the minimum age for participation in hostilities.

Human Rights – Refugees

On 13 August 2001, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock issued a press release concerning the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Extracts from the release follow:

The Government has been concerned for some time that the 1951 Refugee’s [sic] Convention has become so widely interpreted that it is in danger of failing the very people that it was designed to protect.

We are in a situation today where grossly differential outcomes on refugee determination occur depending upon the country in which protection is being sought. For example, the UNHCR assessing the protection claims of asylum seekers intercepted in Indonesia en route to Australia, is achieving an acceptance rate of 14.6% for Afghanis and 59.6% for Iraqis. In Australia, the same caseload achieves acceptance rates 84% for Afghanis and 94% for Iraqis.

It is unacceptable that people who are able to pay a people smuggler and make their way through several countries where they may avail themselves of protection, are getting a more favourable outcome than people languishing in the most appalling circumstances in refugees camps around the world.

The Australian government has re-iterated its commitment to support the Refugees Convention, however we cannot support the continued expansive interpretation of the application of the Convention which is contributing to the abuse of the asylum system to achieve migration outcomes.

In introducing these measures [legislation to discourage fraudulent claims by asylum seekers] the Government will ensure that they do not put us in breach of our international obligations, and we have already been in discussions with the UNHCR over these proposals.

Australia has a strong commitment to its international obligations under the Refugees Convention framework but it is critical that we continue to support this important work on all levels – by targeting fraud and misuse of Australia’s domestic refugee protection arrangements as well as making vigorous efforts to help address refugee problems at their source, and I will be making further announcements in relation to these matters in due course.

On 27 August 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard answered a question without notice from Ms Teresa Gambaro concerning the MV Tampa. An extract of the answer concerning refugees follows:

This is a very difficult and sad situation. From the very beginning, Australia has sought on all occasions … to balance against the undoubted right of this country to decide who comes here and in what circumstances, a right that any other sovereign nation has, our humanitarian obligations as a warm-hearted, decent international citizen.

Australia has a record in relation to caring for refugees of which every member of this House should be proud. No nation in the last 50 years has been more generous or more decent in relation to refugees than has Australia. Of all of the debate that has gone on about this issue, nothing I think grieves people on this side of the House more than the allegation that in some way we have been insensitive to people who are seeking to be classified as refugees. But that does not mean that we are abandoning in any way our right to decide who comes here; nor shall we ever abandon our right to refuse to allow people to be landed in this country in circumstances where that would not represent the best so far as Australia’s national interest is concerned. We have taken this decision based on a proper understanding of our rights under international law. It is the right decision to take in Australia’s national interest. I hope that, amongst other things, it sends a message to people smugglers and others around the world that, whilst this is a humanitarian, decent country, we are not a soft touch and we are not a nation whose sovereign rights in relation to who comes here are going to be trampled on.

On 17 September 2001, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Phillip Ruddock and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Mr Chris Ellison issued a joint press release concerning the Migration Amendment (Excision From Migration Zone) Bill 2001, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone)(Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, and the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. Extracts from the release concerning excision of certain Australian territories follow:

The Migration Amendment (Excision From Migration Zone) Bill 2001 will excise certain Australian territories from the migration zone for purposes related to unauthorised arrivals. Any unauthorised arrival who arrives in an excised area after 2.00pm on 8 September will not be able to make an application for an Australian visa unless the Minister exercises his discretionary power.

This will allow the Commonwealth to undertake assessments for refugee status outside the migration zone without being compelled to issue a visa. People who are determined to be refugees can then apply to the Minister to use his public interest powers to lift the bar, or they can apply for a third country for resettlement.

The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 will introduce a new visa regime for people who are processed under the provisions of the Excision Bill, which precludes access to permanent residence in Australia. It also allows for the detention and removal of unauthorised arrivals in the excision zone.

The new visa regime will provide for a hierarchy of rights depending upon where people made their application.

The Bill will also prevent the institution of legal proceedings against the Commonwealth in relation to the entry, status, detention and transfer of an offshore entry person.

These package of measures will ensure that Australia is meeting its obligations in relation to asylum seekers whilst also sending a clear and unambiguous message to people traffickers and those seeking a migration outcome, that we will no longer tolerate deliberate flouting of our laws and abuse of our compassion.

Human Rights – Situations – Burma

On 25 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning continued human rights in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

We are also encouraged by the continuation of the direct political dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). We believe sustained and constructive dialogue can lead to genuine progress in the political situation in Burma, with the prospect for improvements in human rights
.

We have always believed the solution to Burma’s problems in the long-term lies in a genuine process of political reconciliation between the parties, in particular with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) but also with representatives of Burma’s ethnic groups.

On 24 September 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the humanitarian situation in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

We also note recent expressions of concern regarding the humanitarian situation in Burma. Children’s education and health, including child nutrition, have been identified as areas of deep concern. With this in mind, the Australian Government has decided to send an aid project team to Burma to investigate ways to alleviate the child nutrition problem there.

An estimated one in three Burmese children under five suffers from malnutrition.

The Australian team, to visit Burma from 24 September to 13 October, will design a small aid project to enhance the capacity of Burma’s Department of Health to deal with this humanitarian concern.

We hope that this small measure will also send a signal to the SPDC that progress on human rights and political reconciliation will enhance Burma’s prospects of receiving international assistance that will help relieve its pressing humanitarian problems.

Human Rights – Situations – Burma – human rights training

On 12 January 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

… the Australian Government has completed its planned assessment of its human rights initiative in Burma. The assessment concluded that the workshops conducted, had achieved their limited objectives. Burmese participants freely and frankly discussed human rights issues and international law.

We will now be examining the scope to undertake additional activities in Burma aimed at further promoting human rights protection there. We are under no illusions about the difficulty of promoting change in Burma, but continue to believe that it is worth trying to promote long-term progress through capacity building in the specific area of human rights

On 25 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning continued human rights training in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government will conduct a further four introductory training workshops in Human Rights and Responsibilities in Burma in July and September-October 2001. The workshops will be held in Rangoon, and for the first time in Mandalay, the second largest city in Burma. They will raise awareness of international human rights standards and relevant UN conventions.

We harbour no illusions about the difficulty of promoting change in Burma, but continue to believe that it is worth trying to promote long-term progress through raising awareness in the specific area of human rights.

Human Rights – Situations – Burma – forced labour

On 22 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning an International Labour Organization mission to Burma. An extract from the release relating to forced labour in Burma follows:

The Government abhors the use of forced labour in Burma and supports international efforts to end the practice.

The three-week mission to Burma follows an ILO resolution in June 2000, supported by Australia, condemning the use of forced labour there. Following the resolution, Australia, as an ILO member, was required to review its relationship with Burma to ensure it was not perpetuating the practice of forced labour. The Government has advised the ILO that the review found nothing in Australia’s relations with Burma that perpetuated forced labour.

The Government has also taken constructive steps in other areas to encourage the Burmese authorities to eliminate forced labour. Government-funded human rights workshops conducted in Burma since 2000 have contributed to greater understanding within Burma of international human rights standards. During the 2001 workshops, Burmese participants openly discussed sensitive issues, including forced labour.

Human Rights – Situations – Cambodia

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement follow:

In Cambodia, Australia welcomes the initial steps that have been taken to develop fundamental human rights architecture, including progress towards the establishment of the Khmer Rouge tribunal. But more needs to be done to eradicate military-initiated violence, improve judicial standards and conditions of detention, as well as to combat the problems of people trafficking and violence against women and children.

Human Rights – Situations – Cambodia – elections

On 8 June 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release supporting free and fair elections in Cambodia. An extract of the release follows:

Australia welcomes the announcement by the Cambodian Government that Commune elections will be held on 3 February 2002, for the first time in thirty years.

The elections serve as an important milestone in the process of democratisation in Cambodia and deserve the full support of the Australian Government and the broader international community. During the elections, representatives will be chosen for 1621 communes across Cambodia, providing democratic representation at a local level.

Human Rights – Situations – China

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement follow:

We acknowledge the efforts China has made to build greater accountability into its legal and administrative systems, and also its progress in guaranteeing social and cultural rights. But we are concerned by the sometimes harsh actions the Chinese Government has taken against individuals and groups that appear to have done no more than exercise their human rights. We also urge China to protect the cultural freedoms of ethnic minority groups.

On 18 September 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

answered a question on notice from Mr Peter Andren concerning the human rights situation in China. Extracts from the answer follow:

The Government is aware of suggestions in some quarters that the 2008 Olympics might provide an opportunity for the improvement in human rights in China. The Government understands that the IOC’s choice of Beijing to host the 2008 Olympics represents a recognition of the fact that China is opening to the world, and the world to China. The Government hopes that this will cause China to look more closely at its domestic record, including in the area of human rights, and how it presents itself to the world.

The Government will discuss the human right situation in China closely through the annual bilateral Human Rights Dialogue process. It will continue to encourage China to improve its performance in this regard, including in the light of Beijing’s successful bid for the 2008 Olympics. The Government believes that an overall assessment through this mechanism offers a more effective approach than alternatives such as benchmarking. Dialogue represents the most effective means available for encouraging improvements in human rights in China.

Human Rights – Situations – East Timor

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement follow:

The approaching elections in East Timor highlight the importance of open political dialogue based on democratic principles and respect for human rights. Continued international support for East Timor before and after independence will be critical.

We remain deeply concerned at the large numbers of East Timorese in refugee camps in west Timor. We welcome Indonesia’s steps to resolve this situation. But Indonesia must take further action to improve security in west Timor and, with the support of the UN

and the international community, to ensure that the refugees can freely decide their future.

Human Rights – Situations – Fiji – elections

On 24 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release welcoming the holding of elections in Fiji. Extracts from the release follow:

The Government welcomes the holding of elections in Fiji from 25 August to 1 September under the 1997 Constitution. These elections are a significant step forward for Fiji in returning to democratic and constitutional government. The Australian Government has consistently encouraged the early holding of elections in Fiji.

Since the events of May 2000, the Government has sought the return of constitutional and democratic rule to Fiji, both through the imposition of sanctions and through offering assistance to Fiji to facilitate elections. As previously announced, the Government has provided a grant of FJD 1 million (around $845,000) to the Fiji Electoral Commission. Further assistance being provided by Australia includes technical advice, mainly through the Australian Electoral Commission, and assistance to various civil society organisations for education and information awareness activities in the lead up to the elections.

The provision of observers to the multilateral observer missions demonstrates that Australia shares the international community’s desire that Fiji return to democracy and constitutionality, and underlines the importance that Australia places on these elections being free and fair.

On 5 October 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the lifting of bilateral sanctions imposed on Fiji in July 2000. Extracts from the release follow:

The sanctions were imposed to encourage Fiji to an early return to democracy. Fiji has made clear progress. It has recently held elections, with observer missions from the United Nations and the Commonwealth reporting that the results reflect the will of the people. The elected members and a new government have been sworn-in, and the Parliament reconvened on 2 October.

The lifting of bilateral sanctions means that we will resume providing a comprehensive program of development assistance to the people of Fiji.

I congratulate the people of Fiji for the peaceful way in which democracy has been restored. Australia looks forward to rebuilding closer links between our two countries on the basis of a shared commitment to democratic values and the rule of law.

Human Rights – Situations – Indonesia

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement follow:

Indonesia continues to face strong challenges in its post-Soeharto transition. There have been positive developments, such as the introduction of the Human Rights Court Act. But it is essential that Indonesia continue to work to protect the human rights of all of its citizens, particularly in Aceh, Irian Jaya, the Maluku provinces and Kalimantan. Indonesia has made some progress but must do more to bring to justice those responsible for human rights abuses in East Timor, including by cooperating effectively with UNTAET [United Nations Transitional Administration
in East Timor]. Australia will continue its support for Indonesia’s efforts to improve its legal framework and human rights architecture and urges the international community to do likewise.

Human Rights – Situations – Iran

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement relating to Iran follow:

Australia recognises that there has been positive movement in some areas in Iran. We continue to be encouraged by President Khatami’s promotion of the rule of law. But our concerns about due process and freedom of expression continue. We urge Iran to allow a visit by the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights and to ensure that minorities, most notably Jews
and Baha’is, are accorded the full protection of the law under the Iranian Constitution.

Human Rights – Situations – Solomon Islands – elections

On 20 July 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the provision of assistance for Solomon Islands elections. Extracts from the release follow:

I am pleased to announce that Australia will provide $1.6 million to the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission to help prepare for national elections later this year.

Australia is providing this assistance because of our strong conviction that elections should be held this year as scheduled by the Constitution. This position is shared by other members of the international community, including New Zealand, which announced additional assistance on 18 July, and the European Union, which also agreed this week to provide election funding.

Human Rights – Situations – Zimbabwe

On 21 August 2001, in the Senate, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill answered a question without notice from Senator John Faulkner concerning the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. Extracts from the answer follow:

… the government is increasingly concerned about reports of a deterioration in law and order in Zimbabwe, particularly the failure of authorities to uphold the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and respect for human and property rights. We are particularly disturbed at continuing reports of attacks on farmers and farm workers and of politically related violence, which is having a damaging effect on stability and safety in parts of the country. I can advise the Senate that Mr Downer has communicated in strong terms the government’s increasing concern about the situation in Zimbabwe to the Zimbabwe High Commissioner to Australia. He repeated our position on respect for the rule of law and upholding human and property rights for all Zimbabweans, black and white. We want to see a return to a stable democracy in Zimbabwe, and Australia wants to play a helpful role, including support for initiatives by other members of the Commonwealth.

On 24 September 2001, in the Senate, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill

answered a question without notice from Senator Andrew Murray concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. Extracts from the answer follow:

We have spoken before on the subject of Mr Mugabe and his government and have condemned the violence that has been perpetrated upon farmers and others under his regime. There is no secret about that. We have used what diplomatic measures we have to hand to try to influence a better outcome in Zimbabwe and we will continue to do so.

I think that the way to respond to that is to exert, together with our friends, sufficient political pressure on Mr Mugabe to accord to the basic tenets of human rights as we appreciate them.

Social Law – Social Security Agreements

On 7 August 2001, the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Portugal on Social Security done at Lisbon on 30 April 1991; the Protocol to the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria on Social Security, done at Vienna on 26 June 2001; the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, done at The Hague on 2 July 2001; the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada, done at Ottawa on 26 July 2001; and the Agreement between Australia and Spain on Social Security were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The following extract is common to the National Interest Analysis for all of these Agreements:

Australia’s network of bilateral social security agreements improves access to income support for people whose adult lives are split between Australia and the other country that is a party to the Agreement. Most people benefiting from the agreements are age pensioners. Such agreements also improve income support coverage for people with disabilities, widowed persons and some carers.

The new Agreement … incorporates the same general principles as a number of other agreements Australia has on social security … A key element in the new Agreement and these other social security agreements Australia has is the sharing of responsibility between the Parties in providing adequate social security coverage for former residents of their countries.

The Agreement on Social Security between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany, and Concluding Protocol, done at Canberra on 13 December 2000 tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 21 August 2001. The accompanying National Interest Analysis contained similar text.

Social Law – Social Security Agreement – New Zealand

On 23 May 2001, the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand, done at Canberra on 28 March 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The National Interest Analysis is in substantially the same terms as the National Interest Analyses extracted above.

Additionally, the National Interest Analysis for the Agreement with New Zealand states:

The Agreement provides for access to Australian and New Zealand social security retirement and disability pensions … Under the Agreement residents of Australia and New Zealand will be able to move between Australia and New Zealand with the knowledge that their benefit rights are recognised in both countries.

The new Agreement brings economic and political benefits to Australia through a more equitable sharing of the costs of benefits paid to former New Zealand residents living in Australia. At the same time the Agreement contributes and reaffirms the very positive and important role that freedom of trans-Tasman movement and a single Australia-New Zealand labour market play in the development of Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand.

VIII. Diplomatic and Consular Relations

Croatia

On 31 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the visit of Croatian Foreign Minister Mr Tonino Picula, to Australia. Extracts from the release follow:

This is the first visit to Australia by a senior minister in the current Croatian Government.

Mr Picula’s visit will reinforce what is already a friendly and productive relationship.

During our discussions, I will highlight the importance of the large Croatian community in Australia as a valuable asset in the relationship. The Croatian community has made a lasting and positive contribution to Australia’s political, cultural and economic life. Mr Picula and I will look for ways to build further on the people to people links between our countries to expand trade and investment relations.

I note that the opening of the Australian Embassy in Zagreb in 1999 has strengthened government to government contact and helped service the needs of the Australian Croatian community.

Mr Picula’s visit reflects the commitment from both sides to further deepening relations, based on the strong links that our two countries already enjoy.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

On 28 June 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr Paek Nam Sun issued a joint press release announcing the intention of Australia and the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea to establish resident embassies in Canberra and Pyongyang. Extracts from the release follow:

On the occasion of the visit to Canberra by Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun, we signed a joint statement confirming our respective intentions regarding the establishment of resident embassies. The Government of the DPRK will establish a resident embassy in Australia in 2001. The Australian Government will aim to establish a resident embassy in the DPRK in the 2002/03 financial year.

Since the resumption of diplomatic relations between our countries in May last year, Australia’s ambassador in Beijing has been accredited to the DPRK, and the DPRK’s ambassador in Jakarta has been accredited to Australia.

Mr Paek’s visit and our understanding on resident embassies are important milestones in the development of Australian-DPRK relations. The early establishment of a DPRK Embassy in Australia will provide a channel for regular exchanges and facilitate trade and other links.

Above all, the development of these links will facilitate our dialogue on the critical security and humanitarian issues which continue to afflict the Korean Peninsula. It therefore reinforces our consistent encouragement of the policies of engagement with the DPRK.

Mauritania

On 13 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and Mauritania. Text of the release follows:

I am pleased to announce that Australia and Mauritania have agreed to establish diplomatic relations pursuant to Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Both Australia and Mauritania will move soon to appoint Ambassadors in accordance with international practice.

I hope that the establishment of diplomatic relations with Mauritania will build upon the friendly relations our two countries share, and enhance the business, cultural and community links between us.

The establishment of a diplomatic relationship between our two countries offers the opportunity of working in partnership in a range of fields of common interest, including agriculture, mineral exploration and the environment.

I envisage Australia’s Embassy in Paris will be accredited to Mauritania.

United States of America

On 22 May 2001, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a joint press release concerning the opening of a Consulate-General in Chicago, USA. Extracts from the release follow:

Chicago is a major financial and industrial centre and a key location for powerful mid-west farm interests and for the transport and communications sector. Austrade already has an investment facilitation service in Chicago.

Mr Downer said that the new Consulate-General would enhance Australia’s interaction with economic and political decision-makers from this important region of the United States.

Mr Vaile added that it would also support Australian business in identifying, developing and utilising trade and investment opportunities in a region which generates nearly one third of the GDP of the largest economy in the world.

The expansion of Australia’s presence in the United States will also improve consular service delivery for Australians in that country who require assistance.

IX. Treaties

Information on Australian Treaty Action

Current information concerning treaties that Australia has signed, ratified or acceded to is available from:

Treaties Secretariat, International Organisations and Legal Division,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Barton ACT 0221.
Alternatively, the information is available at: <www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat>

Treaties and Domestic Law

On 28 March 2001, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison representing the Attorney-General, answered a question without notice from Senator Brian Greig in the Senate concerning Australia’s commitment to international treaties and their effect on domestic laws. Extracts from the answer follow:

[W]e have the administrative decisions bill … That is basically the flow-on from the Teoh decision whereby there was some impact of international treaties on domestic decision makers. This is of great concern to the government and the wider community in Australia because … I think all Australians believe that laws for Australians should be made by Australians within Australia. That is something which really is a basic tenet of our system in this country. Australia is not shirking its international obligations one bit. The fact is that we have looked at things like the International Criminal Court; we have looked at a whole range of human rights initiatives. In fact, Australia has an excellent reputation over the years for the role it has taken on the international stage in relation to human rights. To say that international treaties should thereby have an automatic effect on domestic legislation would be wrong.

It was this government which set up the joint treaties committee … a process which made our ratification of treaties much more transparent and available for the community to have some input … I think that this is an essential aspect in relation to Australia’s role in international human rights

. But, at the end of the day, domestic laws are just that: laws for Australians made by Australians.

What we have is a very good system of law in this country which addresses individual liberties with unequalled reference across the international community.

Treaties – Taiwan

On 21 August 2001, an Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Application of Non-Proliferation Assurances, done at Washington D.C. on 31 July 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the National Interest Analysis relating to Australia’s relationship with Taiwan follows:

Since Australia does not recognise Taiwan as a state, it is not possible to negotiate a bilateral safeguards agreement directly with Taiwan as Australia’s uranium export policy usually requires. Nonetheless, Australia recognises that Taiwan has legitimate energy needs and that it has chosen nuclear power as part of its energy supply mix. The proposed Agreement with the United States provides for Australian uranium to be enriched in the United States, after which it would be transferred to Taiwan. In this way, Australian uranium will be covered by nuclear safeguards agreements between Australia and the United States, and between the United States, Taiwan, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This arrangement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation commitments and the terms of Australia’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China in 1972.

X. International Organisations

United Nations

On 27 February 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the appointment of Mr John Dauth as Australia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York. An extract of the release follows:

I have today announced the appointment of Mr John Dauth, LVO, as Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, New York.

Mr Dauth’s appointment as Permanent Representative to the UN reflects the continuing importance Australia attaches to the UN and to ensuring that our involvement in the UN serves our national interests.

His appointment comes at a time of great opportunity for the UN, with its members having reaffirmed at the UN Millennium Summit last September their commitment to the organisation and having pledged to make the UN a more effective world grouping. For Australia, this means encouraging the UN to strengthen and modernise its role in maintaining international peace and security – a task it has already begun. It also means encouraging the UN to maintain a program of reform that concentrates on improved efficiency and institutional focus and aligning the organisation’s structures more closely with the world of the 21st century.

United Nations – Human Rights Committee System – reform

On 5 April 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock issued a joint press release announcing an Australian initiative to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Committee system. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia will pursue a range of measures aimed at making the United Nations Treaty Committee system more efficient and workable and to increase the momentum for their reform.

A high-level diplomatic initiative with Ministerial leadership is a key outcome of a review of the treaty committee system that the Government announced in August last year.

While this will be a long term commitment, the Australian initiative also seeks outcomes that are practical, achievable and of immediate demonstrable benefit to the committee system and the cause of international human rights.

An early priority will be to find ways to ease the current administrative burden on the committees including by developing operational guidelines that ensure shorter, clearer and more focussed reports.

These measures reflect Australia’s commitment to achieving a human rights system that can better advance the cause of international human rights by targeting offenders and engaging more constructively in dialogues with countries which, like Australia, take their obligations seriously.

On 5 April 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer answered a question without notice from Mr Peter Nugent in the House of Representatives concerning the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Committee System. Extracts from the answer follow:

In August of last year the government announced the outcome of our review of the interaction with the six core human rights treaty committees. Honourable members will be aware that this government has been extremely critical of the performance of the United Nations committee system. Our review revealed considerable weaknesses in the way the treaty committees operate, including a lack of recognition of the primary role of democratic governments, that there was a lack of coordination between the committees and at times a distinct failure by some of those committees to act within their mandates.

There is widespread agreement within the United Nations system about the need for reform and there is concern about the credibility of the United Nations treaty committee system. As we said at the time, it is not that we are against the system itself; it is our view that if the system is to be credible and to have any impact then it has to work efficiently, effectively and be a system which addresses the core issues. In our discussions over the last few months with both the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and also the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, both of them have agreed that the United Nations human rights committee system does need reform.

Today the Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and I have announced a high level diplomatic initiative to give momentum to our campaign for the reform of these United Nations committees. As part of that initiative, we will host a ministerial meeting in the margins of the General Assembly in New York in September to discuss with other ministers ways of improving the system. We will host three workshops over three years to examine key reform issues and build consensus around practical achievable measures.

On 21 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning a new report into the United Nations Human Rights Committee System. Extracts from the release follow:

I welcome the findings of a new international report into the UN human rights treaty committees that underscore the urgent need for reform of these bodies with a view to making them operate more effectively.

The report by Canadian academic Professor Anne Bayefsky, entitled “The UN Human Rights Treaty System: Universality at the Crossroads”, was prepared in collaboration with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the problems facing the treaty committee system and notes that some difficulties are most conspicuous with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Alarmingly, Professor Bayefsky observes that political bias is most evident in the CERD’s concluding observations by the “differential treatment of some states (in the absence of corresponding justification in terms of human rights conditions)”. The report highlights that “the CERD has the least developed concluding observations” and that the concluding observations of the six committees “meet the conditions of accuracy and functionality to widely varying degrees”. This often reflected a poor knowledge of the country in question and the excessive influence exerted on committees by external sources.

Professor Bayefsky’s observations of the performance of the CERD are completely consistent with the concerns the Australian Government expressed last year about that Committee’s observations on Australia.

The Bayefsky report also highlights a burgeoning reporting burden, duplication of procedures, rudimentary follow-up action and a disproportionate focus on the human rights conditions of some countries. For example, the report notes that, of the 98 states currently participating in the individual complaints mechanism to the UN Human Rights Committee, 35 per cent of all cases come from just five states – Australia, Canada, Uruguay, the Netherlands and France.

The report also identifies that there are 1200 overdue country reports to the six human rights committees. In the last 30 years, however, those committees have considered just 1600 reports. In particular, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has 242 overdue reports but only considers 15 a year. This means that if no further reports were forthcoming, CEDAW would still require at least 16 years to consider those overdue reports.

Professor Bayefsky’s report provides a most useful analysis of the problems facing the UN treaty committee system. Many of the suggestions she has made for improving this situation could be discussed at the three workshops Australia will convene over the next three years and at the informal Ministerial meeting we will host later this year in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly.

On 19 June 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, responded to a question on notice from Dr Andrew Theophanous on Australia’s human rights obligations. An extract concerning reform of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Committee system follows:

There is broad international support, including from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson for action to improve the effectiveness of the UN treaty bodies and associated human rights committees.

A recently-released study entitled “The UN Human Rights Treaty System: Universality at the Crossroads” reflects many of the same concerns as those advanced by the Australian government and calls for wide-ranging reform. Its author – Canadian academic Professor Anne Bayefsky – collaborated closely with the UN in its preparation. Broadly speaking, she depicts a system overburdened with an enormous backlog of national reporting and inefficiently structured, with resultant duplication of effort. The report also claims the system is often characterised by an excessive focus on high-performing states and inconsistency of treatment of states.

The government has received support for its stance from other individuals and organisations. Equally, however, the government has been approached by some non-government organisations and individuals expressing concern over some elements of the government’s position on the reform of the UN treaty bodies.

On 20 June 2001, Attorney-General Daryl Williams, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Phillip Ruddock issued a joint press release concerning a workshop on 19 June 2001, on improving the process of reporting to the six United Nations Human Rights Treaty Committees. Extracts from the release follow:

The workshop is a key element of the Government’s diplomatic initiative to improve the operation of the UN treaty bodies, announced on 5 April 2001. It will bring together, for the first time, key participants in the system to explore measures to streamline the reporting process. The focus will be on practical improvements with a demonstrable impact in the short to medium-term.

States are required to submit reports to the six treaty committees under the six core human rights instruments. This is a critical part of international human rights monitoring, but the pressures on the system now undermine its effectiveness.

… [B]urdens on the reporting process could be lessened considerably through the implementation of a number of procedural measures to reduce the excessive paper burden on States Parties, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the treaty committees. This could include measures to reduce duplication, produce shorter, thematic reports and more sensible timeframes for the submission of periodic reports.

The workshop is a timely opportunity to build support for these measures and to explore strategies for their successful implementation.

Australia’s leading role in this process demonstrates the Government’s strong commitment to strengthening international human rights monitoring by the treaty committees.

United Nations – Human Rights Committee System – Optional Protocol to the CEDAW

On 6 February 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams responded to a question on notice from Mr Robert McClelland on Australia’s human rights obligations. An extract concerning Australia’s comments about the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women follows:

The Government considered the issue of signature or ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in the context of the review of Australia’s interactions with the United Nations treaty committee system. The Government decided not to sign or ratify this instrument due to the Government’s concerns with the operations of the treaty committees.

United Nations – UNESCO – reform

On 17 October 2001, a statement was delivered by the Australian Delegation to the 31st Session of the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Extracts from the statement concerning reform of UNESCO follow:

At the close of the last millennium the image of UNESCO was of an Organisation which had highly relevant goals, important but somewhat unfocused programmes, and poor governance and management; and consequently low staff morale. Much progress has been made over the last two years as a result of the Director-General’s reform agenda. Within the Secretariat new structures have been established and a new culture of performance is slowly emerging. Much remains to be done to ensure that the theory of the new structure, and the essence of the new culture, are implemented and absorbed at all levels of the Organisation. But the progress that has been achieved under the Director-General is impressive.

But we must not focus solely on the Secretariat. There are three distinct components in the structure of governance of UNESCO. While the Secretariat, led by the Director-General, has begun the process of organisational reform, the other two components, the General Conference and the Executive Board, have, as yet, made little progress towards establishing an effective role for themselves in the UNESCO of the 21st century. This must be a high priority for us in the coming biennium.

The General Conference must re-establish its role as the body which conveys the views and the broad priorities of Member States to both the Secretariat and Executive Board – it is the Parliament of UNESCO. The role of the Executive Board should be to oversee the detailed implementation of these views and priorities by the Secretariat. This is very easy to say, and indeed, blindingly obvious. But to establish such a regime of governance is much more difficult.

Potentially the scope of UNESCO activities is almost limitless – culture, education, sciences and communication cover a vast spectrum of human activity. What we must develop is a sharp focus on a limited number of areas in each sector – and across sectors – on issues which are most relevant, and where UNESCO has a clear comparative advantage. We are, at present, spreading our resources too thinly and, as a consequence, we do not always achieve the international recognition of UNESCO’s expertise, and the international profile that this would bring.

United Nations – International Labour Organization

On 27 February 2001, the Amendment to the Constitution of the International Labour Organization was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The amendment to the ILO Constitution, when it enters into force, will enable the annual International Labour Conference (ILC) to abrogate international labour Conventions that have lost their purpose or no longer make a useful contribution to attaining the objectives of the ILO.

At present, Conventions which have come into force cannot be abrogated. The Governing Body of the ILO may decide to “shelve” a Convention, which means that the International Labour Office does not encourage ratification, limits publication of the text and does not request reports on its application. Shelving of a Convention does not, however, negate the obligations of State Parties under it. At international law, States which have become party to Conventions remain bound by their terms until, and then only if the terms of the particular convention permit, action is taken to denounce the obligations. In addition, the right of employer and worker organisations and member States to make representations and complaints about implementation of the shelved Convention remains intact.

Australia has long supported moves to review the ILO’s standard setting process. If the ILO is to retain its status as the primary body for establishing, maintaining and supervising international labour standards, then it must ensure that both the standards and the process for adopting standards are up-to-date and relevant.

The acceptance and entry into force of the 1997 amendment will go some way toward achieving this goal.

United Nations – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

On 27 February 2001, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

In the years since UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] was negotiated it has become apparent that its treatment of the privileges and immunities of the Tribunal and of its members, officials, counsel and witnesses appearing before it is inadequate by comparison with other international tribunals of like standing and importance (such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the proposed International Criminal Court). The only provisions of Annex VI touching on this matter are Article 10 of Annex VI, under which States Parties are obliged to accord to members of the Tribunal, when engaged on Tribunal business, diplomatic privileges and immunities, and Article 18(8) which provides for their salaries, allowances and compensation to be free of all taxation.

To remedy this deficiency, the States Parties to UNCLOS negotiated this Treaty. Once it enters into force, the Treaty will fill the gaps left by UNCLOS by providing for a more comprehensive treatment of the privileges and immunities of the Tribunal, its members and officials, and persons participating in proceedings before it. Australia, as a user of the Tribunal, would benefit from the more solid underpinning to the work of the Tribunal that the Treaty will provide.

It is possible that Australia will decide to exercise in future its right to nominate the Tribunal as its preferred forum, or one of its preferred fora, for the compulsory settlement of disputes concerning UNCLOS. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for Australia to have conferred on the Tribunal privileges and immunities equivalent to those that it confers on other international courts and tribunals.

The privileges and immunities that would be granted under the Treaty are those necessary for the Tribunal and persons connected with it to carry out their functions effectively and without interference.

Pacific Islands Forum

On 27 February 2001, the Agreement establishing the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, done at Tarawa on 30 October 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

Upon entry into force, the Agreement shall terminate and replace the 1991 Agreement establishing the South Pacific Forum
Secretariat (Article XIV).

The name change reflects the wider geographic spread of Forum members, some of which are located in the North Pacific. Australia, as a founding member of the South Pacific Forum, has abiding interests in the Pacific, including the political stability of countries in the region, facilitating growth in trade and investment and helping Forum island countries to achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance. Ratification of the Agreement would send a positive signal to the countries of the Pacific region regarding Australia’s commitment to the region and its development.

Australia plays a prominent role in Pacific regional affairs, both as an economic partner and development assistance donor. Australia has strong and enduring bilateral relations with all Forum island countries (the generic name used to refer to the fourteen non-developed Pacific island members of the Forum to distinguish them from Australia and New Zealand, which are developed, metropolitan states). In broad terms, Australia’s interests in the region centre on political stability, encouraging growth in trade and investment and assisting Forum island countries to achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance.

Ratification of the Agreement would not only be appropriate because of Australia’s position as a founding member of the Forum but would also send a strong and positive signal regarding Australia’s continued commitment to the region.

Asia-Pacific Postal Union

On 27 February 2001, the Asian-Pacific Postal Union: Second Additional Protocol to the Constitution of 4 December 1985, as amended and the Additional Protocol to the General Regulations, done at Tehran on 18 September 2000, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

Australia’s continued membership of the APPU provides a strong basis for influencing the regional postal service reform agenda. Ratification of the Additional Protocols would clearly indicate Australia’s commitment not only to the APPU but also more broadly to the Asia Pacific region.

Ratification of the Protocols will facilitate further cooperation between the postal administrations of member countries and support the continued improvement of postal services within the region. It will also send positive signals to postal administrations within the Asia-Pacific region regarding Australia’s continuing desire for enhanced postal market competitiveness.

XI. International Environmental Law

Commission on Sustainable Development – Atmosphere

On 7 March 2001, the Australian Delegation delivered a statement to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Ad-Hoc Intersessional Working Group on Transport and Atmosphere. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia recognises the importance of protecting the earth’s atmosphere and the need to ensure policy consistency with other elements of the CSD [Commission on Sustainable Development] work program, in particular with the energy and transport sectoral themes.

We note that there are several relevant international forums aimed at advancing policies and programmes to protect the atmosphere, including the Vienna Convention [for the Protection of the Ozone Layer], the Montreal Protocol [on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer] and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. There are also implications for other related agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Australia supports the principle that a cooperative, coherent approach to developing and implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) should be taken to ensure global environmental benefits are maximised. This will require careful coordination, while recognising the special contribution of each of the existing agreements, and the need to maintain the commitment that exists in the international community to those agreements, many of which are working well.

Australia supports the approach recommended in the Secretary-General’s report, particularly in relation to maintaining or improving air quality in urban areas, including through setting and enforcing national standards for air quality.

Climate Change

On 7 March 2001, the Australian Delegation delivered a statement to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Ad-Hoc Intersessional Working Group on Transport and Atmosphere. Extracts from the statement relating to climate change follow:

Australia is committed to providing an effective response to the threat of climate change as well as meeting our international climate change commitments. With these goals in mind, the Australian government has committed almost A$1 billion over five years to implement domestic greenhouse reduction programs. These programmes include the introduction of a mandatory target for the uptake of renewable energy, the introduction of energy performance standards for appliances and the construction industry, and increasing the use of alternative fuels such as compressed and liquefied natural gas.

Australia views the ongoing negotiations of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as the most appropriate forum for advancing work on climate change issues. We see it as important that decision-making on climate change is left to that specialist forum, which resumes as COP6 in Bonn, Germany, in July of this year. It is not appropriate for the CSD to try to take on that role.

Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol

On 17 April 2001, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the Pew Center on the issue of global climate change. Extracts from the address follow:

Australia, with our fragile ecosystems, sensitivity to drought and flood, and the importance of natural resources to our economy, is particularly vulnerable to the threat of climate change.

Australia is listening and responding to the message that the science is sending us, most recently through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report. We accept our responsibility to future generations. We have taken the Kyoto outcome seriously, we believe the target we were given in Kyoto was fair and we have proceeded with the task required to meet the commitments set out in the Protocol.

We have progressively instituted a comprehensive program of domestic measures and are now directing almost A$1 billion of public funds to reducing greenhouse emissions.

In our experience to date, Australia has found that it is possible to develop innovative greenhouse policies that can also be used to address other pressing concerns. We are successfully integrating climate change into natural resource management, and using greenhouse to help assist with solutions on salinity and land degradation. We have linked greenhouse to our drive to promote renewable and sustainable energy.

On 19 July 2001, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill presented a statement to the 6th Conference of the Parties (resumed) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia believes that the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion indicates that human activity is having a discernible and negative influence on the earth’s climate system.

As such, we accept that it is our responsibility, along with the other nations of the world, to take the precautionary actions required to minimise and reverse this influence.

Australia is not walking away from the Kyoto process and we are not walking away from the target we accepted as part of the Kyoto Protocol.

On the contrary, we have already made significant progress toward implementing the domestic policies and measures required to fulfil our Kyoto commitments.

We have established an ambitious suite of greenhouse gas reduction programs in which we will invest $1 billion, including almost $400 million to support the development and uptake of renewable energy technology.

Australia looks forward to engaging constructively with other parties on how we might address these issues in moving forward together in the effort to combat global warming.

Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol – international rules

On 17 April 2001, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill addressed the Pew Center on the issue of global climate change. Extracts from the address relating to international rules and the Kyoto Protocol follow:

[T]he lack of agreed international rules threatens to constrain the development of the next phase of our domestic response – for example, a domestic trading scheme in carbon emissions.

We expected these international rules to be developed and settled within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. In this respect, we have always said that Australia’s approach is dependent upon workable and efficient rules for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, sinks and compliance. Furthermore, we said we need a process leading towards developing country commitments to control their emissions. Such a process is necessary if we are not to distort the economic (and environmental) outcomes of the Protocol.

These international rules, yet to be agreed, must address issues of cost, equity and participation if we are to have an effective international agreement – whether through the Kyoto Protocol or in some other form.

A global response is needed, both to tackle the problem and to sustain the solution. It is a sobering fact that, after many years of discussion, there is not yet any consensus on how to provide for a truly global response. This is a critical failure that must now be overcome.

A robust and durable global response requires that all countries commit themselves to take action, and that all be seen to be doing so. Only in this way can all countries be confident that our efforts will prevail.

As we have demonstrated by our actions in international fora since late 1997, we have supported the Kyoto Protocol despite the fact it is incomplete and has shortcomings. We have sought to complete the Protocol through the negotiation of rules with an emphasis on least cost abatement options, broad coverage of sources and sinks and an encouraging rather than punitive compliance regime. We have sought to address the shortcomings on participation consistent with the principle of “common but differentiated” responsibilities, which is reflected in the Convention. We have done so in conjunction with a number of other parties who have generally shared our views on these key issues. This remains our preferred approach.

It is our view, however, that it is not possible to have an effective Protocol without the United States of America. If the United States has therefore determined that the Protocol is unacceptable – presumably because it believes the unresolved issues in and around the Protocol cannot be resolved in a fair and effective way – then we will want to explore with the United States its views on the international architecture which can deliver an optimal global response.

Climate Variability

On 7 March 2001, the Australian Delegation delivered a statement to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Ad-Hoc Intersessional Working Group on Transport and Atmosphere. Extracts from the statement relating to climate variability follow:

It will be important to consider climate variability as a sustainability issue in its own right as distinct from climate change. Natural climate variability (such as droughts and floods associated with El Nino/La Nina phenomena) has a significant impact on sustainability in many parts of the world and may lead to serious food shortages, disease outbreaks and other significant impacts, regardless of climate change. Any programmes in education and public awareness should recognise this important issue and the role of the WMO and its programmes in assisting countries to address it.

Ozone Layer

On 7 March 2001, the Australian Delegation delivered a statement to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Ad-Hoc Intersessional Working Group on Transport and Atmosphere. Extracts from the statement relating to the ozone layer follow:

In relation to the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Australia ratified the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer in 1987, the Montreal Protocol [on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer] in 1989 and was one of the first countries to ratify the subsequent Amendments. Experts advise that, while the provisions of the original Montreal Protocol would have lowered the growth rates of ozone depleting substances, recovery of the ozone layer is impossible without implementation of all subsequent Amendments. On this basis, Australia proposes the Commission urge all countries to ratify and fully implement the Montreal Protocol on Substances Depleting the Ozone Layer and all its Amendments. The recovery of the ozone layer is dependent upon countries’ full implementation of the measures set out in these agreements.

In relation to the replacement of ozone depleting substances with Kyoto Protocol gases, Australia supports the approach adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in addressing linkages between ozone depletion and climate change. Australia notes a Montreal Protocol report assessing the implications for the Montreal Protocol of the inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol. The report concluded that the pursuit of the environmental objectives of each Protocol need not interfere with those of the other.

Australia places a high priority on the sound scientific basis of the Montreal Protocol, and has found it to be a valuable resource in generating community and industry support for government action to address ozone depletion. We support the recommendation “that the critical ground-based measurement for total column ozone coordinated by the WMO [World Meteorological Organization] be strongly supported”.

The Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund has been a very effective mechanism for providing support to developing countries to meet their obligations under the Protocol. This is satisfactorily being progressed through the specialist forums of the Montreal Protocol.

Persistent Organic Pollutants – Agreement to Reduce Toxic Pollution

On 16 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s signing of the Agreement to Reduce Toxic Pollution. Extracts from the release follow:

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment, accumulate in the food chain and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment.

Senator Hill, said global action to reduce releases of POPs was necessary as they could be found in regions where they had never been used or produced and therefore posed a threat to the environment of the whole globe.

Mr Downer said Australia had already implemented stringent domestic measures, consistent with the international agreement, to reduce and control POPs. The agreement would help developing countries, including those in the Asia Pacific region, to manage POPs appropriately and would complement Australian assistance already provided in this area.

The agreement also includes provisions to nominate chemicals which appear to have similar toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative properties to the 12 existing POPs. Nominated chemicals would be subject to a rigorous science-based review and assessment process. Consistent with Australian Government negotiating objectives, the agreement addresses public health and environmental concerns, and takes into account Australia’s particular agricultural and industrial circumstances.

Wildlife Conservation – Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

On 23 May 2001, the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the National Interest Analysis follows:

Australia has promoted the development of this Agreement which seeks to coordinate and harmonise conservation actions undertaken in both the terrestrial and marine environment internationally to contribute significantly to the conservation of albatrosses and petrels and their habitats in the Southern Hemisphere. The Agreement brings international conservation standards and actions in relation to albatrosses and petrels into line with those currently in place domestically in Australia, and as such there is no additional cost or obligations arising from the proposed treaty action.

The Agreement has been an Australian led initiative since 1997. Australia has played a significant role in the development and finalisation of this Agreement. For Australia not to ratify the Agreement would be inconsistent with this role. Additionally, Australia would be unable to contribute to, and subsequently benefit from, the harmonisation of information, data and conservation standards developed internationally under the Agreement. A decision not to ratify the Agreement would limit Australia’s ability to continue to be a world leader in seabird conservation.

Wildlife Conservation – Amendments to the Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific

On 7 August 2001, Amendments to the Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (the Apia Convention) adopted by consensus at the Fifth Meeting of the Contracting Parties held in Guam on 9 October 2000, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follows:

Australian ratification of the amendments is in the national interest as it will encourage regional commitment to the Apia Convention and through it to conservation of nature and biodiversity in the Pacific, without imposing additional obligations on the Parties.

Australia’s ratification would also send a positive signal to Pacific Island Countries regarding Australia’s commitment to the region and its development. It may also encourage accession by a greater number of Pacific Island Countries (currently there are only three).

Wildlife Conservation – Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats

On 3 July 2001, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill issued a press release concerning Australia’s signature of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia has signed an international agreement to help secure marine turtle populations in the Indian Ocean, and in South East Asia.

Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill said Australia’s signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats (Indian Ocean and South East Asia) would help protect globally threatened marine turtles and the areas in which they lived.

“Australia has a major role to play in the protection of these magnificent creatures. Our coastlines possess some of the largest marine turtle nesting areas in the Indo-Pacific region, and have the only nesting populations of the Flatback turtle,” Senator Hill said.

Of the seven species of marine turtles in the world, six occur in Australian waters: Loggerhead turtle, Green turtle, Hawksbill turtle, Leatherback turtle, Olive Ridley turtle and the Flatback turtle. All of the species are classed as either endangered or vulnerable under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Cultural Heritage – Buddhist statues in Afghanistan

On 2 March 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

issued a press release concerning Buddhist statues in Bamian Province, Afghanistan. An extract of the release follows:

I call on Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban to heed international calls to protect ancient Buddhist statues in that country. The Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has ordered all statues in Afghanistan to be destroyed. The 2000-year-old statues in the Bamian Province of Afghanistan are of outstanding cultural and spiritual significance, not just for Afghanistan, but for the international community as a whole. I urge the Taliban to heed earlier calls by UNESCO
and a number of other governments to exercise religious and cultural tolerance by ensuring the safety of these historical treasures.

Cultural Heritage – Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage

On 27 November 2001, Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning underwater cultural heritage. An extract of the statement follows:

… the adoption last month of the Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, which provides for an international regime to better protect and preserve underwater cultural heritage. The Convention appropriately reflects the primary role of the coastal State in bringing about the most effective protection of such heritage.

XII. Disputes

State Responsibility

On 31 October 2001, a statement was delivered to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly for the Australian Delegation. Extracts from the statement concerning the Report of the International Law Commission on State Responsibility follow:

Australia is pleased to welcome the International Law Commission’s Final Report on State Responsibility, and to congratulate the Commission on completion of this task. … Public international law has expanded exponentially, in subject matter, in complexity, in prevalence, and in everyday, direct relevance. States are entering into treaty arrangements unthinkable from the perspective of fifty years ago, and are resolving their disputes in fora and manners which would have been unimaginable at that time. Yet this expanding and elaborate construction of public international law still rests on the key foundation of state responsibility. The Commission, in delivering this report, has succeeded in mapping the very foundations of international law. It has provided the basis on which the existing construction can rest more solidly, and on which continued development can be based.

In completing its work, the Commission has clearly kept sight of its dual instructions – the codification, and the progressive development, of international law. Australia commends the Commission for the clear and useful commentary which accompanies the articles, and which provides some guide as to where each article falls in the international law continuum from established custom to progressive development.

… Firstly, Australia welcomes the use, in Article 42 of the draft articles which defines the injured state, of the phrase “the international community as a whole”. This phrase achieves the requisite breadth of coverage – not only states, but also international organisations and other persons and entities.

Australia also welcomes the solution found in paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the draft articles, which defines “injury” as including damage, rather than consisting of damage. This broad approach allows for a range of potential types of damage and, given the broad range of situations to which these draft articles might be applied, this approach is a sensible one.

The previous definition in former Article 43, now Article 42, of an “integral obligation” was one with which Australia had some difficulty. Therefore we are pleased to see that this formulation has been replaced by a clearer and more definite formulation: that “the breach of the obligation is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other states to which the obligation is owed with respect to the future performance of the obligation.” These are all positive developments.

My delegation acknowledges the significant work which the Commission has undertaken to find an appropriate and acceptable treatment of the issue of countermeasures in the draft articles. Australia has long supported the inclusion of a countermeasures regime, and therefore are pleased to see them appear in the text. As the commentary states, the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros case has confirmed that a lawful countermeasure precludes wrongfulness. Australia has also maintained that, while it is important to ensure that countermeasures are not abused, the provisions on countermeasures should not be too restrictive in their operation. In this respect, paragraph 4 of Article 53, which provides that a state is not obliged to refrain from taking, or to suspend, countermeasures where a dispute is pending before a court or tribunal, if the responsible state is not engaged in dispute resolution in good faith, is an important caveat.

The Australian delegation has at previous sessions expressed concern that the link envisaged by the articles between the conduct of an insurrectional movement and the state responsibility of a new State which emerges from that insurrectional movement was too open ended. It appears that draft Article 10 has not been amended to reflect this concern. We have noted the views expressed in the Commentary on this question, but continue to be of the view that it would have been useful to have some further elaboration and clarification in the text on the degree of proximity, or the particular time frame required, for the conduct of an insurrectional movement, which becomes the new government of a State, to be considered an act of that new State.

Australia is grateful to the Commission for its work in relation to the definitions of “injured state” and “other state”. We welcome the Commission’s amendments to the term “collective interests” in draft article 48(1)(a) as this provides the necessary clarification. However the use in Article 48(2)(b) of the phrase “beneficiaries of the obligation” may lead to some uncertainty regarding the scope of this article and those concerning countermeasures by States other than the injured State in draft article 54. That said, we are pleased with the overall balance achieved in Article 48.

Although Australia has offered a few comments on specific articles, and indicated a preference for further clarification of a few concepts, this should not be taken as a criticism of the overall package of the draft articles in any way. Rather these observations are made in the process of fully evaluating these articles.

This brings me to the related issue of whether the articles, whatever form they take, ought to contain a dispute settlement provision. In the event that the articles are adopted as a non-binding code or declaration, there would clearly be no need or use for such a provision. Should the articles be adopted as a treaty, this would be of such broad application that a general provision on compulsory dispute settlement could not realistically be included. It is our view, instead, that reliance be placed on existing dispute settlement provisions, including the application of the Optional Clause under the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and recourse to other relevant tribunals, such as the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Bougainville

On 30 August 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer answered a question without notice from Mr David Jull concerning the Bougainville Peace Agreement. Extracts from the answer follow:

Today is a truly historic day in the history of the South Pacific and is a historic day in many respects for our country as well, because today in Arawa, in Bougainville, a comprehensive settlement agreement is to be signed. This is an historic achievement which marks a very important step forward in the Bougainville peace process and in essence brings to an end a bloody civil war which, in its impact on people’s lives, was considerably more damaging than the Northern Ireland conflict has been since 1969 … I am very proud of the role our government has played, along with our friends and colleagues in New Zealand, in helping the government of Papua New Guinea and the people of Bougainville to bring about this settlement.

… I particularly want to acknowledge the role played by the 2,000 Australian Defence Force personnel and 260 Australian civilian monitors who so far have served in Bougainville as part of the Peace Monitoring Group. We continue to remain committed to that. We have also provided, by the way, close to $100 million in aid to Bougainville over the past few years. What this aid has done has been to help underwrite and encourage the peace process, because, without that aid, there would not have been a peace dividend; and without that peace dividend I think it would have been very hard to keep the peace process together.

… I am not underestimating the difficulties that still lie ahead with the peace process. It is going to be necessary to get legislation through the Papua New Guinea parliament with an appropriate majority. It is going to be necessary to implement a weapons disposal plan. None of those things is going to be easy. But today is a day that in this country we can truly celebrate as a day when a civil war in our part of the world has come to an end.

Burma

On 12 January 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the human rights situation in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

I very much welcome the announcement by the UN Secretary-General that UN Special Representative Razali has confirmed Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) have begun a direct dialogue.

The Australian Government has long been deeply concerned about the human rights situation and political developments in Burma. In both of these respects this is potentially an encouraging development. I hope that the dialogue proves to be genuine and leads to real progress.

We have always believed the best way to resolve Burma’s problems in the long-term is through sustained and constructive dialogue, in particular with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) as well as with representatives of ethnic groups.

On 29 January 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the developing dialogue in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

I very much welcome the release by the Burmese Government of 85 National League for Democracy (NLD) detainees, including NLD vice-chairman U Tin Oo.

This is an encouraging sign for the dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). I look forward to further signs of momentum developing in this dialogue.

I particularly welcome the release of NLD Youth Wing members, including 13 arrested in April last year, 20 arrested in August during the Dala incident and 51 arrested in September at Rangoon station when they attempted to travel to Mandalay with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Australian Government has long been deeply concerned about human rights in Burma. We have always believed the best way to resolve Burma’s problems in the long-term is through sustained and constructive dialogue, particularly with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD as well as with representatives of ethnic groups.

On 22 June 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the release of political prisoners in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government welcomes the release of fourteen political prisoners by the Burmese government over the past two weeks. Those released were all NLD MPs. Thirteen had been detained immediately after the NLD established its Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP) in 1998 and were held in Government “guest houses”. Among this group was 83-year old CRPP Chairman, U Zaw Mra Aung. In addition, U Soe Thein was released on 13 June following, I understand, the completion of a five-year prison sentence.

We also welcome the re-opening of 18 National League for Democracy (NLD) branch offices in Rangoon.

The Australian Government has long called for the release of all political prisoners in Burma, and this is an initial step in that direction. We are also encouraged that the direct dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) is continuing. We hope the dialogue leads to genuine progress towards promoting both human rights and political reconciliation in Burma.

We have always believed the best way to resolve Burma’s problems in the long-term lies in a genuine process of political reconciliation between the parties, in particular with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) but also with representatives of Burma’s ethnic groups.

On 24 September 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning political developments in Burma. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government has been encouraged by recent political developments in Burma, including last month’s release from defacto house arrest of the National League for Democracy chairman Aung Shwe and vice-chairman Tin Oo. Their release brings the total number of political prisoners released since January to more than 160.

However we remain deeply concerned that many Burmese citizens remain imprisoned for their political beliefs and we will continue to impress the importance of further prisoner releases upon the ruling State Peace and Development Council.

We are also encouraged that the confidence-building process between the NLD and the SPDC is continuing and we welcome the role being played by the United Nations Special Envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail. Following his most recent visit to Burma in August, Mr Razali has confirmed that all parties remain committed to the reconciliation process. We also hope that these talks lead to a greater respect for human rights in Burma.

Cyprus

On 11 September 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the situation in Cyprus. Extracts from the release follow:

It is my hope that a report, which I have just received from Australia’s Special Envoy for Cyprus, the Hon. Jim Short, can contribute to international efforts to find a just and lasting resolution to the Cyprus dispute.

Australia has limited influence over the parties directly involved in this long-running dispute. However, Australia has the second largest community of Cypriots in the world outside Cyprus and a long involvement with the Cyprus problem. Reflecting these interests, the position of Special Envoy was created in 1998 to assist international efforts towards a resolution.

Australia has contributed police to the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus since 1964 and consistently supported the Secretary-General’s efforts towards solving the dispute.

In my discussions with relevant international leaders over many years, I have stressed that the existing situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The lack of a resolution is lamentable and has led to much human suffering.

The report represents a positive and valuable contribution to the global community’s efforts and the Australian Government will give due consideration to Mr Short’s recommendations.

On 7 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning progress on the Cyprus dispute. Extracts from the release follow:

I warmly welcome the agreement between leaders, Mr Glafcos Clerides and Mr Rauf Denktash in Cyprus on 4 December to conduct direct talks on the Cyprus problem under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. These talks will commence in mid-January 2002.

A solution to the Cyprus problem is long overdue, and I hope both leaders are able to negotiate a peaceful and lasting resolution to the Cyprus problem, which meets the legitimate needs of both communities.

There is widespread agreement that all parties must take advantage of the current critical window of opportunity to solve the Cyprus problem. I am confident that the large Cypriot, Greek and Turkish communities in Australia can play an important role in helping to contribute to the search for peace on Cyprus and in building the goodwill and momentum which has led to the resumption of talks.

East Timor

On 26 June 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer answered a question without notice from Mrs Kay Elson concerning Indonesian President Wahid’s visit to Australia. Extracts from the answer relating to human rights abuses in East Timor follow:

There was … some discussion with our Indonesian counterparts about the issue of human rights abuses before and after the East Timor ballot in 1999. We expressed our view that we wanted those involved in those abuses to be brought to justice. Both the foreign minister and the President have made it clear that they are still committed to establishing ad hoc tribunals to deal with those involved in these abuses both before and after the ballot in 1999. We look forward to the ad hoc tribunals being established and the Indonesian government moving ahead with that process.

Ireland

On 13 March 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, Mr Brian Cowen TD issued a joint press release regarding their meetings in Australia. An extract of the release relating to the peace process follow:

Mr Downer expressed the Australian Government’s appreciation and support for the continuing efforts of the Irish Government to achieve a lasting peace in Ireland. As a country with a large proportion of people of Irish descent, Australia was watching the peace process closely. Mr Downer said he hoped the parties could soon reach agreement on the outstanding issues in the Good Friday Agreement and achieve the goal of a permanent peace.

Middle East – Israel and the Palestinian Authority

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. Extracts from the statement relating to the Middle East follow:

Australia is also deeply disturbed by the loss of life and injury resulting from the violent confrontations in the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Israel. We appeal to all parties to respect the lives and welfare of others, to stop the violence, and to develop conditions for peaceful co-existence.

On 2 June 2001, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard issued a press release concerning a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Extracts from the release follow:

As both a friend of Israel and a supporter of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, I was appalled to learn this morning of the terrorist outrage overnight against innocent civilians in Tel Aviv …

This blatant act of terrorism is all the more deplorable since it occurs during a unilateral Israeli ceasefire, declared in response to the Mitchell report’s call for an immediate cessation of violence and a resumption of peace talks.

Both sides need to act decisively and with courage to prevent a further decline into senseless violence. Australia joins other members of the international community in calling on all those concerned to recognise the devastating implications for both sides of a deepening cycle of provocation and retribution. The only solution is one arrived at through dialogue between the parties, in which terrorist violence plays no part.

On 4 June 2001, in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer answered a question without notice from Mr Chris Pyne concerning the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Extracts from the answer follow:

If left unchecked, there is a real danger that this violence could spiral totally out of control, with a devastating effect on hopes for an early peace in the Middle East. With that danger firmly in mind, the Australian government condemns the terrorist attack, in the strongest of terms. Moreover, we urge both sides to step back from the brink in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy and to accept that, for the sake of both peoples, there must be an immediate cease-fire and a return to the negotiating table.

I note that following a statement of condemnation of the attack issued by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Yasser Arafat, on 2 June – and we welcome his statement – the Israeli government has held off retaliation and that, over the last two days, the level of violence in the Palestinian territories has at least diminished somewhat; and that is a welcome development.

At a meeting in Pretoria on 2 May, I emphasised to Mr Arafat the futility of the cycle of violence that has gone on since September last year. This latest example underlines the point and demonstrates how critically important it is for a genuine cease-fire to be solidified. Only then can the negotiators again sit down and work out peaceful solutions to the problems between both sides. It is the Australian government’s view that they should use the recommendations of the Mitchell committee report as a very sound basis for their work … this is a shocking development in the Middle East, and we can only hope and, indeed, pray that out of this tragedy comes some good and that a cease-fire and negotiations will commence.

On 30 November 2001, Ambassador of Australia to the United Nations, HE Mr John Dauth delivered a statement concerning the Middle East at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts from the statement follow:

For Australia, events in the Middle East over the past year have intensified the sense of deep frustration we felt when violence broke out again towards the end of last year.

After the real, and courageous, progress that Israel and the Palestinians made in the first half of 2000, we watched with dismay and disappointment the provocation, violence and retaliation. Australia has repeatedly called at the highest levels for an immediate end to the violence and an early and effective resumption of negotiations. This is now more important than ever.

Australia remains committed to a negotiated settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace. We remain strongly committed to the territorial integrity of Israel, and the right of the people of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force, as affirmed in resolution 242. We are equally committed to the application of this principle to all states in the region.

Australia will continue to play a positive and constructive role in support of peace in the region. We have maintained an active program of development assistance to the Palestinian people for many years. This has included support for programs to develop democracy and good governance. Our program of assistance will continue, with planned expenditure this year of around $9 million.

Almost half of this assistance will be allocated to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which remains the primary agency for the delivery of international assistance in the region to Palestinian refugees. We continue to value highly the work of UNRWA.

Australia will also continue its program of bilateral assistance to the Palestinian Authority. This year, we have allocated over $2 million for this purpose. We will also be continuing our support for the work of NGOs, including the WFP [World Food Programme] and ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross], with around $3 million being earmarked for the Palestinian programs of the WFP and ICRC. In addition to our development assistance to the Palestinian people, this year Australia will provide almost $1 million through the WFP development pledge to Syria.

Compromise by all parties will be essential. We have seen that compromise is possible, even on the most deeply felt issues. Courage, leadership and flexibility will be required. These qualities have been displayed before also. Australia now calls on the leaders of the region to show they have these qualities in sufficient store to achieve the goal of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace for the region. Only then will they secure for their people that greatest of prizes, for now and for future generations, of a bright, prosperous and safe future.

Solomon Islands

On 30 March 2001, a statement was delivered to the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the Australian delegation on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. An extract of the statement relating to the Solomon Islands follows:

In the Solomon Islands, we are pleased that tensions have eased with the signing of the Townsville Peace Agreement, but much remains to be done. We will continue to support indigenous efforts to advance the peace process.

XIII. Armed Conflict and Security Matters

Defence Cooperation – Classified information of defence interest – Denmark, South Africa

On 27 February 2001, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark for the Reciprocal Protection of Classified Information of Defence Interest, done at Copenhagen on 27 September 1999, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the Reciprocal Protection of Classified Information of Defence Interest, done at Canberra on 11 May 2000, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts common to the accompanying National Interest Analyses for both Agreements follow:

The Agreement sets out security procedures and practices for the exchange of classified information between the Parties, for the protection of transmitted classified information and for visits.

Australia currently exchanges a limited amount of classified information with [Denmark] [South Africa] on an activity specific basis. The information exchanged includes details of defence acquisition projects (allowing the other country’s industry to tender or participate), and information related to cooperation between the two countries’ armed forces. [There are further cooperative activities in the defence sector currently under development between Australia and South Africa.] This Treaty, by providing the necessary protocols and security assurances to facilitate all exchanges of classified defence information, will obviate the lengthy process currently required for each individual exchange.

Defence Cooperation – Defence logistic support – United States of America

On 7 August 2001, an Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation in Defence Logistic Support done at Sydney on 4 November 1989, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The purpose of the proposed exchange of notes is to extend the 1989 CDLSA [Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation in Defense Logistic Support], which expired on 4 November 1999, and to make some minor amendments to it. The 1989 Agreement provided for the exchange of mutual logistics support to enhance the capabilities of both countries’ armed forces. In March 1999 it was agreed between senior defence officials of both countries that the CDLSA was important to the Australia/United States military relationship because it enables the reciprocal provision of military support (both supplies and services) from within respective military systems; it provides for the establishment of maintenance programs which enhance industry capability; and it contributes to Australia’s military preparedness through expeditious provision of equipment in contingent circumstances. Accordingly, extension of the CDLSA is beneficial to both nations. In negotiating the proposed exchange of notes, the Parties also agreed on some minor amendments to the original CDLSA text, which would bring references in it to computers and computer data, and to Australian legislation, up to date.

The CDLSA enables Australia to seek provision of logistics support (including supply of material, repair and maintenance services, transportation and applicable technical data) to supplement Australian Defence Force and defence industry capabilities.

Defence Cooperation – Terrorism – ANZUS Treaty

On 14 September 2001, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard issued a press release concerning Australia’s invocation of the ANZUS treaty. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian people have been shocked and outraged at the enormity of the terrorist attacks on the United States. These heinous crimes have caused catastrophic loss of life, injury and destruction. We anticipate that a significant number of Australian nationals are included among those who lost their lives.

I have already conveyed to the President of the United States the condolences of the Australian Government and people, and expressed our resolute support for the United States at this most difficult time.

The terrorist attacks on the United States were discussed today at a special Cabinet meeting that I convened on my return from the United States.

The Government has decided, in consultation with the United States, that Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies to the terrorist attacks on the United States. The decision is based on our belief that the attacks have been initiated and coordinated from outside the United States.

This action has been taken to underline the gravity of the situation and to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to work with the United States in combating international terrorism.

The Australian Government will be in close consultation with the United States Administration in the period ahead to consider what actions Australia might take in support of the US response to these attacks.

Defence Cooperation – Terrorism – armed force

On 25 September 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning armed force to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. An extract of the statement follows:

Australia joined other nations in condemning the outrageous and cowardly terrorist attacks in this city and Washington earlier this month. We believe strongly that Article 51 of the UN Charter and Security Council Resolution 1368 of 12 September give the necessary legal authority to respond to these acts, including through the use of armed force.

Armed Conflict – Middle East

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from that statement follow:

[W]e continue to regard settlement activity in the territories occupied during the 1967 war as contrary to international law, provocative and deeply harmful to the peace process.

Australia has been disappointed this past year at the lack of progress on the issues that so tragically divide the Israeli and Palestinian people and hold them back from the enjoyment and benefits of a full and free life. Nevertheless, we have been encouraged by the commitment and perseverance of the major players.

Although the present situation is difficult, we have a viable set of principles to guide us back to the path of a negotiated peace. The recommendations of the Mitchell report and of the Tenet plan are the vital, and necessary, steps to end the current violence. All parties should seek immediately to implement them in good faith. Only then can mutual confidence be rebuilt, which is necessary to enable them to address their historic grievances on the basis of security, individual dignity and mutual respect.

Peacekeeping

On 21 November 2001, Mr Bassim Blazey, Counsellor for the Australian Delegation delivered a statement at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning peacekeeping. Extracts from the statement follow:

September 11 and the events following has reminded us again that the struggle for peace and security remains central to the work of the United Nations. In pursuing this objective it is vital for the United Nations to have the ability to mount responsive and well planned and executed peacekeeping operations. For this reason Australia welcomes the continuing focus in many parts of the UN system on ways in which to improve UN peacekeeping operations. We are particularly appreciative of the continuing work of the UN Secretariat to ensure that the recommendations of the Brahimi Report and the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations are implemented in a timely and effective way. We welcome the briefing provided by Under-Secretary-General Guehenno, which has highlighted the more recent steps undertaken to implement these recommendations. We also welcome his commitment to management change and a culture of continuous improvement.

The range of issues which need ongoing attention in order to improve peacekeeping is now familiar and well understood. We know that it is necessary to continue strengthening the planning, management and mission support functions in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We need to ensure that creation of Integrated Mission Task Forces become a standard response to complex crises. Such task forces need to work in a transparent and open way. We need to continue working to ensure that communication and coordination between the field and headquarters is as good as it can be. Logistical support for UN peacekeeping operations should be subject to continuous improvement. We need to ensure that deployment of peacekeepers can be genuinely rapid and effective, to maximise the benefits that early insertion of forces brings in terms of limiting the depth and scope of conflict. In this regard, development of the strategic reserve at Brindisi is of fundamental importance. And when peacekeepers and other associated personnel are deployed it is vital that everything possible is done to ensure their safety.

… we also need to continue improving the quality of consultation between the Security Council, Troop Contributing Countries and the Secretariat.

While work on improving peacekeeping must continue, we recognise that peacekeeping is only one element in the range of responses the international community must draw upon to respond to threats to peace and security. The necessary and justified response in self-defence to the appalling attacks of 11 September reminds us that states need to remain vigilant to such threats and prepared to respond firmly. At the other end of the spectrum of responses, it is also important, as we were reminded in the Secretary General’s report on Conflict Prevention, that the international community be more proactive in addressing the roots of conflict and work harder to stop conflicts at the earliest possible stage in the conflict cycle.

Peacekeeping – Bougainville

On 8 August 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the conflict in Bougainville. Extracts from the release follow:

I warmly welcome the announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Mekere Morauta, that the PNG Cabinet has endorsed, with some modifications, the Comprehensive Political Settlement to bring the Bougainville conflict to an end.

Australia remains committed to bringing peace to Bougainville. We will continue to lead the Peace Monitoring Group and provide the bulk of its logistical support and its personnel until its job is done. We will build on the work of the more than 2000 Australian Defence Force personnel and 260 civilian monitors who have served with the Peace Monitoring Group. We have provided close to $100 million in aid to help restore services to Bougainville. We stand ready to continue to assist the Bougainville peace process diplomatically, through our aid program and through the Peace Monitoring Group, if our contribution can bring peace and a lasting settlement to Bougainville.

Conventional Weapons – Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from that statement relating to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons follow:

[W]e call on all states to accede to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its protocols, which, together, are an important instrument of international humanitarian law.

On 24 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Extracts from the release follow:

The decision to entrust the Presidency to Australia’s Ambassador Les Luck in Geneva reflects the high standing Australia enjoys as an active player in the fields of international humanitarian law and conventional arms control.

I welcome the agreement reached to extend the scope of application of the Convention to cover internal as well as international armed conflict. A significant proportion of the humanitarian casualties of war results from internal conflict. This decision will help provide greater protection for civilian populations in particular.

The conference also agreed to establish a group of experts to discuss ways to tackle the problem of unexploded and leftover munitions, known as Explosive Remnants of War (ERW). Studies by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other NGOs have highlighted the threat which explosive remnants of war pose to civilian populations and humanitarian relief efforts. Australia strongly supports efforts to minimise this threat and attaches particular importance to the decision to set up an experts group to conduct further work on this subject next year.

Australia is pleased that over 30 countries have joined the CCW since the 1995 Review Conference and encourages non-States Parties to accede to the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

In the lead-up to the Second Review Conference, I wrote to 104 foreign ministers from non-States Parties, urging them to sign the Convention. Australia will continue to take appropriate opportunities to promote universalisation of the CCW.

Conventional Weapons – Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines

On 27 April 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning landmines. Extracts from the release relating to the Ottawa Convention

on Anti-Personnel Mines follow:

The Government also has a firm commitment to the ultimate goal of a total ban on anti-personnel landmines, through universalisation of the 1997 Ottawa Convention. In my meetings with the Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Ali Hammoud and Defence Minister Khalil al-Hrawi, in Beirut this week, I strongly urged the Lebanese Government to accede to the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from that statement relating to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction follow:

Australia urges those Middle Eastern states that have not yet done so to contribute to efforts to strengthen the global regime against anti-personnel landmines by ratifying the Ottawa Convention banning landmines.

Conventional Weapons – Small arms

On 9 July 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the designation of a Small Arms Destruction Day. Extracts from the release relating to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons follow:

I welcome the United Nation’s decision to designate 9 July as Small Arms Destruction Day to coincide with the start of a major UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in New York.

Australia has played a leading role in preparing for the Conference and negotiating the Program of Action, underlining the Government’s commitment to combating the illicit small arms trade. We have also been active in developing regional approaches to tackle the small arms problem. In May this year, Australia hosted a Pacific Island Small Arms Workshop in Brisbane to provide regional legislators, law enforcement officers and customs officials with practical advice on controlling the movement of small arms and to help them develop model legislation.

In line with national policy and consistent with the international community’s efforts, Australian police have destroyed nearly 25 000 firearms over the past year.

On 22 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s signing of the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. An extract of the release relating to small arms follows:

Australia has been active in assisting South Pacific states to address the humanitarian and socio-economic problems associated with the spread and illegitimate use of small arms. Earlier this year we hosted a workshop in Brisbane and are working on follow-up initiatives for the coming year.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Weapons inspections in Iraq

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from that statement follow:

In every region, a positive security environment depends on states meeting their international obligations. We share the concern of others that the weapons verification and monitoring work in Iraq mandated by the United Nations Security Council has not been possible for nearly three years. The continued lack of assurance about WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] in Iraq can only have a destabilising effect on the region as a whole. We call upon Iraq to cooperate fully with UNMOVIC [UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] to achieve full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Chemical and biological weapons – Australia Group

On 5 October 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Australia Group attitude towards chemical and biological weapons. Extracts from the release follow:

At their annual meeting in Paris (1-4 October), the 33 countries from Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas which constitute the Australia Group re-affirmed their commitment to strengthening national efforts to prevent the spread of chemical and biological weapons (CBW).

Participants expressed the resolve of their governments to prevent CBW proliferation, whether by state or non-state actors. Recalling that terrorist groups have used or tried to use chemical and biological agents in the past, participants agreed that the Australia Group has an important role to play in reducing the threat of CBW terrorist attacks.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Nuclear – Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

On 12 January 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning nuclear testing. Extracts from the release relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty follow:

I am pleased to announce that three Australian monitoring stations to detect nuclear testing have been declared fully ready to carry out their task.

Australia will have 20 such stations as part of the world-wide network of more than 300 being established to verify compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) … While further ratifications are needed for entry into force, the treaty is regarded as a near-universal commitment against further nuclear tests.

Certification represents the formal acceptance of Australian technology and expertise as part of the global network of verification facilities. It demonstrates Australia’s leadership in the extensive technical work on CTBT verification, as well as the Australian Government’s excellent cooperation with the CTBTO-PTS.

Australia attaches a high priority to the Test Ban Treaty’s early entry into force and to a fully operational International Monitoring System to verify compliance.

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty follow:

Australia is a strong supporter of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and will continue to work to secure CTBT entry into force. In late 2000, Australian posts overseas made a further round of representations to key countries urging early signature/ratification of the CTBT. Australia took the lead in tabling the CTBT resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority at last year’s UN General Assembly. Australia is taking an active role in arrangements for a high-level conference to be held in New York in September to promote CTBT entry into force.

On 15 November 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Extracts from the release follow:

I … welcome this week’s affirmation in New York by the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT of the international community’s strong commitment to the Treaty. The Conference Declaration also supported the moratorium on nuclear testing, pending entry into force of the CTBT, and called on countries yet to sign and ratify the Treaty to do so as soon as possible.

The Conference, held on 11 to 13 November, welcomed good progress in establishing the International Monitoring System (IMS), which will verify states’ commitments to the Treaty. Australia is playing a central role in establishing this system by hosting 20 IMS stations, the third largest number of stations of any Treaty signatory. Australia presently has the largest number of IMS certified stations.

Australia also co-sponsored with Canada, Sweden and VERTIC (the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, a London-based international policy institute) a seminar on CTBT verification at the UN on 12 November, to coincide with the CTBT Conference. The seminar highlighted the strengths of the CTBT’s verification system.

Australia does not underestimate the obstacles to be overcome to secure entry into force, but will work steadfastly with other supporters of the CTBT until our goal is achieved.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Extracts from that statement follow:

Another critically important element of the nuclear non-proliferation regime is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty (CTBT). Many Middle Eastern states have signed the CTBT, and Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have ratified. We take this opportunity to call upon all regional states yet to sign or ratify the CTBT to do so without delay, in particular those states whose ratification is a prerequisite for the treaty’s entry into force.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Nuclear – Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer relating to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons follow:

The Government is committed to full implementation of the outcomes of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, including the package of nuclear disarmament measures. At the 2000 UN General Assembly, Australia was pleased to support the Algerian NPT resolution, the “New Agenda” resolution, and the Japanese nuclear disarmament resolution (which we co-sponsored), all of which helped lock in the NPT review conference outcomes.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Extracts from that statement follow:

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) continues to provide a solid foundation for efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and work towards their elimination. Australia has consistently called upon the four countries (Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan) which are not yet members of the NPT to join the treaty as soon as possible. We do not consider that special security concerns should be a bar to NPT membership for any country.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Nuclear – Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

On 8 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning a workshop on a Treaty Banning the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons. Extracts from the release follow:

I am pleased to announce that on 14-15 May Australia and Japan will co-host an international workshop in Geneva on a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

The Australian Government has long regarded a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons as a key priority and the logical next step on the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament agenda. Such a treaty, known as the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), would give us all greater security by capping the amount of nuclear material available for nuclear weapons use. A cut-off treaty would contribute to the creation of a security environment conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament.

The international community has repeatedly endorsed negotiation of a cut-off treaty, including at the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and in a resolution adopted unanimously at last year’s United Nations General Assembly. I have been a strong advocate for a cut-off treaty and in my 1998 address to the Conference on Disarmament stressed the need for early commencement of negotiations.

Despite the support for the cut-off treaty, negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament are yet to begin because of disagreements over other areas of the Conference’s work program. The Government is deeply disappointed by the Conference on Disarmament deadlock. Many share Australia’s sense of frustration at the delay in starting cut-off negotiations and it is clear that productive work on the treaty cannot be delayed indefinitely.

We hope that by enabling progress on cut-off issues ahead of the formal negotiations, the Australia-Japan workshop will pave the way for more rapid progress when negotiations begin. As moderator for the first session, Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Les Luck will guide discussion on the role and significance of the cut-off treaty and the general obligations States will assume under it. An expert from the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, Dr Victor Bragin, will present a paper on the key topic of cut-off verification requirements.

Australia’s support for the cut-off treaty reflects our long-established credentials on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament issues. We will continue our efforts to achieve a cut-off treaty as the vital next step for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer relating to the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty follow:

The Government will continue to press for an immediate start to negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Pending a start to negotiations the Government is working on a number of issues that will arise in the context of negotiating an FMCT, including an approach to verification.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the Middle East and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Extracts from that statement follow:

Middle Eastern members of the Conference on Disarmament have clear interests in pressing for early commencement of negotiations on a treaty on ending the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty). Conclusion of a cut-off treaty would be a further step to reduce tensions in the Middle East and is the logical next step on the nuclear arms control and disarmament agenda.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Nuclear – Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material

On 22 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency. Extracts from the statement relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material follows:

Australia attaches particular importance to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, calls upon all states to adhere to it, and looks forward to the extension of its scope to cover material in domestic use, storage and transport. In this regard, Australia welcomes the Director General’s decision to convene a group of experts to draft a well-defined amendment aimed at strengthening the Convention and encouraging States to become parties to it.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Nuclear disarmament

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer follow:

The Government places a high priority on further progress towards nuclear disarmament, but accepts the political reality that reductions in nuclear weapons – leading to a world free of them – will only be achieved through a series of incremental and reinforcing steps.

The Government believes that for the present the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament lies with the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals – the United States and Russia.

The Government will continue to make clear to the United States and Russia its expectation of further action towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Government also welcomes and encourages unilateral nuclear disarmament action taken by the smaller nuclear weapon states.

An effective non-proliferation regime is essential to further progress towards nuclear disarmament. The Government will continue its active support for the vitally important reinforcing steps through which all countries can contribute to an environment favourable for nuclear weapons elimination.

Missiles – UN Experts Panel on Missiles

On 28 July 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the United Nations Experts Panel on Missiles. Extracts from the release follow:

I welcome the first meeting of the United Nations
experts panel on missiles to be convened in New York from 30 July-3 August. The decision to convene the panel at this time recognises the need for the international community to act decisively to combat the growing missile proliferation threat. Missile proliferation destabilises global and regional security including in our region.

The UN’s invitation to Australia to participate in the panel is clear recognition of the Government’s active and constructive role in bilateral, regional and global efforts to address missile proliferation. Australia believes the panel should focus its efforts on practical ways to counter the threat that the proliferation of missiles poses.

Missiles – Missile Technology Control Regime

On 28 July 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the Missile Technology Control Regime. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the sole multilateral arrangement dealing with ballistic and cruise missiles and related technology. Australia is a strong supporter of the MTCR’s draft International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, which members hope will be open for signature in 2002.

Missiles – China

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer relating to China and missiles follow:

Australia has a strong interest in healthy bilateral relations with China, and with continuing to manage any differences in a sensible and forthright way. We have urged China to avoid contributing both to vertical and horizontal missile proliferation and other activities which may undermine strategic stability. However, differences over missile defence and matters relating to force modernisation and the strategic balance are essentially for China to work through with the United States, rather than Australia.

Missiles – Middle East

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement to the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from that statement relating to missiles follow:

We also encourage Middle Eastern states to join in efforts to prevent the destabilizing proliferation of long range ballistic missiles, including through support for the international code of conduct against ballistic missile proliferation to be launched late next year.

International Atomic Energy Agency

On 22 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia looks forward to an even closer working relationship with the Agency in 2001-2002, when an Australian will Chair the Board of Governors.

The events of September 11 have vividly demonstrated to us all the imperative of redoubling the international community’s efforts to respond to global security threats such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Agency’s efforts to ensure that nuclear and other radioactive material is not misappropriated are vitally important, as is the observance by all states of the various guides and other documents on physical protection developed by the Agency over the years.

Australia attaches particular importance to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, calls upon all states to adhere to it, and looks forward to the extension of its scope to cover material in domestic use, storage and transport. In this regard, Australia welcomes the Director General’s decision to convene a group of experts to draft a well-defined amendment aimed at strengthening the Convention and encouraging States to become parties to it.

Australia considers the International Atomic Energy Agency to be a central pillar of the nuclear non-proliferation regime – of which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone. NPT safeguards applied by the Agency remain essential to advancing trade and cooperation in support of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. As a major uranium supplier, Australia places its uranium exports under Agency safeguards to ensure that Australian-obligated nuclear material is used only for peaceful purposes. We very much value the contribution that the Agency’s safeguards make to establish the climate of assurance under which international nuclear cooperation is possible.

Australia is pleased to be the first state in which integrated safeguards are being applied. The Agency is gaining practical experience in Australia in implementing new measures, such as unannounced inspections, complementary access, and managed access, which will prove invaluable as integrated safeguards are extended to other countries. Importantly, we hope that Australia’s experience will also demonstrate that integrated safeguards are not burdensome, but rather deliver benefits in terms of increased efficiency and effectiveness.

Maintaining peace and security also has socioeconomic dimensions. In this regard, Australia places great importance on the unique role played by the Agency in ensuring the safe utilisation of nuclear energy, and in the application of nuclear technologies in developing countries.

The 2000 NPT Review Conference, reinforced by successive Agency General Conferences, has underlined the central importance of maintaining nuclear safety at optimal levels. Australia emphasises the importance of the Agency’s work in developing safety standards governing the nuclear industry, and in developing legal regimes and assistance programs to strengthen nuclear safety in Member States. A particular focus for Australia is promoting improvements in the international safety regime for research reactors. Australia also continues to promote constructive dialogue between shipping and coastal states on the safe transport of radioactive material.

Australia has been pleased to contribute to the Agency’s technical cooperation activities over the past year, both through contributing to the Agency’s Technical Cooperation Fund and direct involvement in activities which foster cooperation in the transfer of knowledge and technology for peaceful nuclear applications. Australian specialists have undertaken many expert missions and lecturing assignments as part of the activities of the technical cooperation programme and Australia has hosted a number of IAEA meetings and training events. We also contribute significantly to technical cooperation activities through our extra-budgetary contributions to specific Agency projects. Australia has also provided strong support to the management, structure and programme of the Agency’s Regional Cooperative Agreement for the Asia-Pacific (RCA).

Dr El Baradei’s comments reflect the highlights of another full year of activity by the Agency in pushing forward with its mandate to harness the atom for the benefit of humanity. Australia will continue to provide the technical, financial and political support for that effort.

Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy – Safeguards

On 27 March 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning a Nuclear Cooperation and Safeguards Agreement with Argentina. Extracts from the release follow:

I am pleased to announce that the Argentine Foreign Minister, Mr Rodriguez Giavarini, and I have initialled the text of a Nuclear Cooperation and Safeguards Agreement.

The Agreement provides a broad framework for cooperation in nuclear science and technology between Australia and Argentina.

The Agreement is consistent with Australia’s strong stance on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons while enabling peaceful uses of nuclear technology. It ensures that any transfer of nuclear material or equipment between Australia and Argentina is subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and complies with Australia’s longstanding policies for the control of nuclear materials.

On 21 August 2001, the Agreement between Australia and the Argentine Republic concerning Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The conclusion last year of a commercial contract between an Argentine firm, INVAP SE, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) for the construction of a replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights is expected to lead to significant cooperation between Australia and Argentina in nuclear technology both during the construction phase and in later scientific collaboration. The proposed Agreement would facilitate such cooperation including in the following areas: research reactors and associated components, equipment and materials; nuclear medicine; the safe management of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes; radiological protection, nuclear safety and regulation; the exploration and exploitation of nuclear ores; and technology for safeguards and physical protection.

The Government’s nuclear safeguards policy requires that Australia has in place a document of treaty-status with any country to which nuclear materials will be transferred. The replacement research reactor contract involves transfers of materials, technology and equipment to Australia. There is also a possibility that irradiated fuel may be transferred to Argentina for conditioning and subsequently returned to Australia as waste. While existing policy requires the proposed Agreement to cover only material which is exported from Australia, given the significance of the replacement research reactor project, the Government considers it desirable to put in place a full safeguards agreement covering also material returned to Australia. By doing so, the proposed Agreement will ensure that the project is entirely consistent with the non-proliferation commitments of both Australia and Argentina.

At present, Australia has 15 bilateral safeguards agreements in place, covering countries. These agreements complement the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards system in order to assure the peaceful non-explosive use of Australian nuclear material and serve our nuclear non-proliferation security interests. These bilateral agreements provide for the application of IAEA safeguards, as provided for under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), for the full life of Australian Obligated Nuclear Material.

The Australian Government regards … aspects of the proposed Agreement as integral elements of its wider policies to prevent the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Government’s White Paper on Australia’s Foreign and Trade Policy (1997) noted that prominent among the global security issues which impinge on Australia’s national security and that of its region is the potential for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Into the foreseeable future, a security imperative for Australia is to maintain the multilateral, regional, and bilateral arrangements that work against nuclear proliferation. The proposed Agreement will reinforce Australia’s security interests and non-proliferation policies.

On 21 August 2001, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Hungary on Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Transfer of Nuclear Material, done at Budapest on 8 August 2001 was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the National Interest Analysis follows:

The proposed Agreement will facilitate the sale of Australian uranium for use in Hungary, consistent with Australia’s uranium export policy and non-proliferation commitments. The proposed Agreement was negotiated due to the interest of WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd, one of Australia’s two largest uranium producers, in selling uranium for use by Paks, the Hungarian nuclear utility, in its nuclear power reactors. WMC believes that it could win up to 20 percent of the uranium market in Hungary realising new export earnings of approximately $A5 million per year at current prices.

Australia’s uranium export policy, first enunciated by the Fraser Government in 1977, provides assurances that exported uranium and its derivatives are used solely for peaceful purposes and cannot be diverted to nuclear weapons or other military programs. At present, Australia has fifteen bilateral safeguards agreements covering the transfer of Australian Obligated Nuclear Material (AONM) to 25 countries. These agreements complement the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system in order to assure the peaceful non-explosive use of AONM consistent with our security interests in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) implements the terms of Australia’s bilateral safeguards agreements by tracking AONM through the nuclear fuel cycle.

On 21 August 2001, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Czech Republic on Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Transfer of Nuclear Material, done at Prague on 27 July 2001 was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The proposed Agreement will facilitate the sale of Australian uranium for use in the Czech Republic, consistent with Australia’s uranium export policy and non-proliferation commitments. The proposed Agreement was negotiated due to the interest of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd, Australia’s two largest uranium producers, in selling uranium for use in Czech nuclear power reactors. The producers believe that they could win up to 20 percent of the uranium market in the Czech Republic realising new export earnings of approximately $A10 million per year at current prices.

The proposed Agreement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation commitments, including those contained in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The Czech Republic is a party to the NPT and a member in good standing of international non-proliferation regimes. All of the Czech Republic’s nuclear activities are subject to fullscope safeguards applied by the IAEA. In addition, the Czech Republic has signed an Additional Protocol for the implementation of the IAEA’s strengthened safeguards system, and is working towards bringing it into force.

On 21 August 2001, an Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Application of Non-Proliferation Assurances, done at Washington D C on 31 July 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract of the National Interest Analysis follows:

The purpose of the proposed Agreement is to facilitate the sale of Australian uranium for use in nuclear power reactors in Taiwan, under conditions consistent with Australia’s longstanding uranium export policy and nuclear non-proliferation commitments. Australia’s uranium export policy provides assurances that exported uranium and its derivatives are used solely for peaceful purposes and cannot be diverted to nuclear weapon or other military programs. It does this through a network of bilateral safeguards applied by the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office which supplements International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Since Australia does not recognise Taiwan as a state, it is not possible to negotiate a bilateral safeguards agreement directly with Taiwan as Australia’s uranium export policy usually requires. Nonetheless, Australia recognises that Taiwan has legitimate energy needs and that it has chosen nuclear power as part of its energy supply mix. The proposed Agreement with the United States provides for Australian uranium to be enriched in the United States, after which it would be transferred to Taiwan. In this way, Australian uranium will be covered by nuclear safeguards agreements between Australia and the United States, and between the United States, Taiwan, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This arrangement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation commitments and the terms of Australia’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China in 1972.

The proposed Agreement with the United States would facilitate the sale of uranium by Australian producers for use in nuclear power reactors in Taiwan, consistent with Australia’s longstanding uranium export policy and nuclear non-proliferation commitments.

Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy – Safeguards – International Atomic Energy Agency – additional protocols

On 22 May 2001, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill answered a question on notice from Senator Vicki Bourne concerning nuclear disarmament. Extracts from the answer relating to the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency follow:

The Government will also continue its efforts to achieve universal application of the Additional Protocol developed to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system.

On 22 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency. Extracts from the statement relating to the Additional Protocol follow:

Regrettably, the 2000 Review Conference’s recognition of the importance of the Additional Protocol has not been reflected in the rate of signature and ratification by states of Additional Protocols. We take this opportunity to urge states yet to sign or ratify an Additional Protocol to do so as quickly as possible. We also urge those states yet to conclude their NPT safeguards agreements to do so without further delay.

XIV. Criminal Law

International Criminal Court

On 7 March 2001, HE Ms Penny Wensley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning the International Criminal Court to the United Nations Security Council. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia has always had a strong commitment to the development of international criminal law, in particular through its support for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. …

The establishment of an International Criminal Court with the capacity to deal with the most serious crimes of concern to the international community has been a longstanding goal of Australia, and one which Australia continues to support strongly, particularly through the current work being undertaken in the ICC Preparatory Commission. We see maintaining the momentum of the ICC negotiations as a significant element in following up the Millennium Summit and the decisions of the Council. The ICC will make a significant contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security.

On 9 September 2001, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams presented a speech concerning the International Criminal Court to the ACT Division of the Australian Red Cross. Extracts from the speech follow:

We support the International Criminal Court because it is in the national interest to do so. We support the ICC because it will bring international criminals to justice. We support the ICC because it will protect and promote the very ideals and freedoms for which Australians have fought and died. We support the ICC because a more stable world community, where gross criminal conduct is not tolerated, ensures a safer world in which Australians can live, work, trade and travel. We support the ICC because not to do so would be to the detriment not only of those living in Australia today and but also of our future generations.

Importantly, we support the ICC because it has many of the checks and balances that are lacking in many of the UN treaty bodies. Its functions and role have been carefully articulated and its powers circumscribed to protect the sovereignty of the countries who support its establishment.

Far from being something Australians should fear, the ICC is something that we should all support. The fact is that the ICC will work to our benefit.

It will promote peace and stability in our region and it will enable the international community to act against rogue States.

Furthermore, by acting as a deterrent against wide scale violence, the ICC may reduce the number of displaced persons seeking asylum. This will reduce the need for countries like Australia to provide a safe haven for refugees.

Finally, it important to note the Defence Force supports the ICC and will benefit from its establishment.

Too often Australian peacekeepers find themselves in situations where law enforcement and judicial systems do not exist. As a result our soldiers find themselves in a position where they are expected to assume the responsibility for bringing the perpetrators of war crimes to justice.

The ICC will fill this vacuum and it will allow our troops to concentrate on their own duties.

The Court will also be of direct benefit to Defence Force personnel. If they fall victim to war crimes, the ICC may be able to investigate and prosecute crimes on their behalf.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

On 15 March 2001, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a joint press release concerning the re-election of Australian judge David Hunt to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. An extract of the release follow:

“Judge Hunt’s re-election to the ICTY, in the context of a very competitive field of candidates, demonstrates the high regard which the international community has for Australia’s continuing contribution to the development of international criminal law,” said Mr Downer.

Transnational Organised Crime – Convention

On 16 October 2001, Mr Guy O’Brian, Second Secretary of the Australian Delegation delivered a statement concerning drug control on behalf of the member states of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. An extract of the statement relating to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime follows:

In December 2000 124 member states of the United Nations signed the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, one of the most far-reaching initiatives in the fight against transnational crime. It commits States party to criminalise offences committed by organised crime groups, and to address matters such as extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of proceedings and joint investigations. We believe widespread adherence to the Convention will lead to a significant harmonisation of the international legal framework applying to organised crime. This should in turn facilitate more effective international cooperation in the prosecution of members of transnational organised crime groups.

We are currently working towards implementation of the Convention and urge all UN member states to address this as a matter of priority.

Transnational Organised Crime – People smuggling

On 6 July 2001, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Phillip Ruddock issued a press release concerning an Arrangement with Thailand concerning illegal immigration.. Extracts from the release relating to people smuggling follow:

The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, has welcomed a new agreement between Australia and Thailand to fight people smuggling and combat illegal immigration.

The agreement, signed by Mr Ruddock and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, Dr Surakiart Sathirathai, enhances the existing cooperation between the two countries.

“This agreement demonstrates and acknowledges the strong relationship that Australia has with Thailand and is a good example of the types of arrangements that we are trying to establish with a range of countries to combat the problem of people smuggling,” Mr Ruddock said.

“People smuggling is a global problem, and only by working together with other governments can we hope to solve it.

“It is both Thailand and Australia’s international responsibility and in our national interests to identify, prevent and punish illegal activities relating to the movement of people, including smuggling, trafficking in women and children and fraud.

“This new agreement outlines ways in which the cooperation between our two countries can be enhanced, including strengthening cooperative efforts in regional fora and increasing joint cooperative activities by fostering bilateral programs, building expertise and providing assistance for the immigration work of both countries.”

On 16 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning people smuggling, to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts from the statement follow:

People smuggling is a growing area of transnational criminal activity which seeks to profit from the misfortunes of the dispossessed …

Australia is strongly committed to doing everything possible to fight people smuggling. Our policies and laws seek to deter and disrupt the activities of these criminal networks. However, it is a problem that is beyond the ability of any country or organisation to solve unilaterally. It must be addressed in a coordinated manner through bilateral, regional and global measures.

Unless the international community acts decisively, the activities of people smuggling networks will continue to undermine the integrity of the international protection system. We should not allow the refugee protection system to be abused by people smugglers and those who seek out their services. There must be a determined international effort to develop a consistent and coherent approach to address this issue, including through implementing effective laws that punish people smugglers, strengthening border protection and enforcement, developing systems that ensure the prompt return and readmission of illegal migrants and enhancing cooperation among law enforcement agencies.

The United Nations has an important role to play in dealing with this increasingly organised trade in the hopes and fears of vulnerable people. In addition to national and regional efforts to address the issue of people smuggling, we strongly encourage a renewed international focus and a more coordinated response to the issue by the United Nations.

For our part, Australia will continue to work closely with our regional partners to examine ways to develop regional solutions. We will also seek multilateral solutions to people smuggling issues through the organs of the United Nations, focusing particularly on carrying forward the commitments outlined in the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice, and the effective implementation of the existing programs of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,. We have begun our internal processes for the ratification of the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and signature of its protocols and will encourage other states in our region to do the same.

We urge member countries to treat this developing area of transnational organised crime with the urgency and importance it deserves and to increase their support for international efforts to combat people smuggling activities through close regional and international cooperation and coordination.

Transnational Organised Crime – People smuggling – protocol

On 22 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s signing of the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. An extract of the release relating to the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air follows:

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (‘the People Smuggling Protocol’) aims to prevent and combat people smuggling by enhancing international cooperation in areas such as border protection and prosecution of people smugglers. It further strengthens international norms against people smuggling. The Protocol has been signed by 95 other countries, including key regional partners in the fight against people smuggling such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Nauru, New Zealand, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

The decision to sign the People Smuggling Protocol is part of the Government’s strategy to combat people smuggling through a range of regional and wider international cooperative measures. The Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, which Australia will co-sponsor with Indonesia in February, will help further to strengthen regional cooperation against people smuggling.

Transnational Organised Crime – Drug control

On 16 October 2001, Mr Guy O’Brian, Second Secretary of the Australian Delegation delivered a statement concerning drug control on behalf of the member states of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Extracts from the statement relating to drug control follow:

International efforts to implement the objectives of the 20th Special Session on “Countering the World Drug Problem Together” have achieved significant success in some areas, most notably crop eradication and substitution. However, the emergence of new technologies has given impetus to the development of new substances, the exploitation of new markets and new methods of operation by transnational criminal groups.

The overriding objective of transnational organised crime groups is the generation of profits. It is particularly important, therefore, to improve the level of cooperation intended to deny transnational criminals access to the proceeds of crime. We urge member states to support and cooperate with international institutions such as the Financial Action Task Force and the appropriate FATF-style regional anti-money laundering body as an integral component of our joint efforts against drugs. We also note the valuable contribution provided by the UNDCP Global Programme on Money Laundering.

Transnational Organised Crime – Drug control – UN International Drug Control Programme

On 16 October 2001, Mr Guy O’Brian, Second Secretary of the Australian Delegation delivered a statement concerning drug control on behalf of the member states of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Extracts from the statement relating to the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) follow:

As the only agency with a global mandate to combat the drug trade, the United Nations International Drug Control Programme
is central to our collective efforts to confront the scourge of drugs. Australia, Canada and New Zealand welcome the significant efforts and achievements of the organisation and remain committed to work with it. It is vital that all nations support the work of UNDCP.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand, in cooperation with other concerned CND member states, will continue to monitor UNDCP’s response and note that the Executive Director of the UNDCP is to report on implementation of resolution 44/16 at the reconvened meeting of the CND in December. We believe full implementation of the recommendations made in the report on the organisation by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight is essential to ensuring that the UNDCP is managed in an open, transparent and effective manner.

In view of the relentless and global nature of the drug threat, it is imperative that our efforts to confront drugs not only maintain, but increase, their momentum. Australia, Canada and New Zealand remain committed to confront the international drug threat and we urge all member states to strengthen their partnerships with the United Nations International Drug Control Programme, other relevant multilateral agencies and each other in this important task.

Transnational Organised Crime – Drug control – United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs

On 10 May 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Extracts from the release follow:

I am pleased that Australia was re-elected to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) on 3 May in New York.

Australia’s re-election to CND demonstrates the international community’s high regard for Australia’s continuing commitment and contribution to the fight against the global trade in illicit drugs. Australia will continue to make an important contribution to CND’s work in supervising the activities of the United Nations International Drug Program (UNDCP), which coordinates the international response to the global drug problem.

Australia’s re-election also demonstrates our long-term commitment to CND, having been a member continually since 1973. Australia’s membership will now continue until 2006.

Transnational Organised Crime – Trafficking in firearms – protocol

On 22 December 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer and the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s signing of the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. An extract of the release relating to the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition follows:

The Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition (‘the Firearms Protocol’), like the People Smuggling Protocol, aims to combat a global problem through international cooperation in law enforcement. As well as provisions requiring States to establish relevant criminal offences, the Firearms Protocol has measures to enable the international tracing of illicitly manufactured firearms. Australia is the twentieth country to sign the Firearms Protocol.

The Firearms Protocol will be another element of Australia’s strong contribution to international efforts aimed at combating the destabilising accumulation, spread and misuse of small arms and light weapons … Australia also played a major role in securing adoption of the Program of Action at the UN Small Arms Conference in July 2001 – the first ever multilateral conference on small arms. The Program of Action … recognises the complementary and reinforcing role of the Firearms Protocol.

Piracy

On 27 November 2001, HE Mr David Stuart, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the law of the sea. Extracts from the statement relating to piracy follow:

Piracy is a real concern in waters to the north of Australia. The recommendations from the meeting will assist regional efforts to combat the recent rapid growth of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Participants in the process highlighted the contribution which marine science can make to sustainable development and effective conservation of the marine environment. Discussion identified the need for further capacity building, for more effective data exchange, and enhanced regional cooperation. The recommendations from the meeting will facilitate effective implementation of the novel regime for scientific cooperation found in Part XIII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Terrorism

On 25 September 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning terrorism to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts from the statement follow:

The international environment has undergone a fundamental paradigm shift in the two weeks since 11 September. Member States of the United Nations, and the organisation as a whole, now face unprecedented and demanding challenges.

For the first time ever, we have invoked the ANZUS Treaty and stand ready to support the United States and other allies in taking whatever steps are judged necessary to bring the perpetrators of this and other acts of international terrorism to justice.

Existing instruments and institutions provide a sound starting point for strengthened international cooperation. We note paragraph 224 of the Secretary-General’s report, which welcomes the ratifications and accessions of the 12 existing global conventions for the suppression and elimination of international terrorism, and notes the continuing work towards a comprehensive convention against terrorism. Australia is a party to [9] out of 12 of the existing conventions, and is actively considering becoming a party to the remaining instruments. We consider a concerted effort must be made to conclude the negotiations on a comprehensive convention against terrorism at the forthcoming session of the working group – to strengthen the international regime against terrorism. Australia will give its full support to this objective.

Australia stands ready to support all efforts to bring perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. We urge the United Nations as a whole to attach the highest priority to this issue at UNGA56 and beyond.

On 2 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning terrorism to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts from the statement follow:

The United Nations has a critical role to play in ensuring all member states cooperate in taking the necessary steps to combat international terrorism. We fully support the measures and strategies outlined in Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373. We urge all States to take immediate steps to comply with these resolutions.

The Prime Minister of Australia announced last week far-reaching measures to freeze the financial assets of terrorists and terrorist groups. We are now looking at what further measures are necessary to give full effect to Security Council Resolution 1373.

Effective implementation and enforcement of the UN sponsored anti-terrorist conventions will create a formidable international legal regime that will starve terrorists of funds and ensure that those involved in terrorist activities are swiftly brought to justice. We must all work relentlessly to ensure that these conventions have a real and abiding impact.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. Am extract of that statement follows:

We also urge all Middle Eastern states to take effective legal measures to combat the threat to international peace and security posed by terrorism, in accordance with recent security council resolutions. These include becoming parties as soon as possible to the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, denying safe haven to terrorists and those who support them, and implementing appropriate national measures to prevent the financing of terrorism.

Terrorism – Comprehensive Convention

On 2 October 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations delivered a statement concerning terrorism to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Extracts from the statement relating to the draft Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism follow:

Australia is party to 9 of the 12 UN sponsored anti-terrorism conventions. We are now taking steps to become a party to the remaining conventions as a matter of priority.

This existing framework of subject-specific conventions can, however, be strengthened. The conclusion of a comprehensive convention against terrorism which supplements the existing conventions would strengthen and broaden the international law framework. Therefore we believe negotiations on the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism should be concluded without delay. Australia is determined to work towards this end at the forthcoming meeting of the working group.

There can be no doubt that there is a need for such a Convention now. We should all commit to making the adoption of this Convention one of the key objectives of this General Assembly.

On 30 November 2001, HE Mr John Dauth, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the situation in the Middle East. An extract of that statement relating to the draft Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism follows:

Australia places great importance on early finalisation of the draft Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism. We urge Middle Eastern states to play a constructive and flexible role in efforts to seek compromise so that remaining differences in the text can be resolved.

Terrorism – Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

On 21 October 2001, the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a joint press release concerning Australia’s signing of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia has joined 60 countries in the fight against terrorism by signing the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

These measures [the Government’s commitment to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act and the new anti-terrorism regulations] demonstrate the Government’s resolve to combat terrorism and to ensure rigorous measures are in place so that Australia does not become a financial haven for terrorists.

Terrorism – Security Council Resolution 1373

On 15 October 2001, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a press release concerning new anti-terrorism regulations. Extracts from the release follow:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, announced today the commencement of new anti-terrorism regulations following the tragic terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September.

The Charter of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations 2001 implements aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 which called on all states to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts.

In announcing the commencement of the regulations, Mr Downer underlined the importance of international cooperation to starve terrorists of assets. Australia’s action was in line with steps already taken by the United States and under way in other countries.

Mr Downer said that the Regulations complemented the Australian measures to address the financing of terrorism announced by the Prime Minister on 28 September. The Regulations were further demonstration of the Government’s resolve to combat terrorism and to ensure rigorous measures were in place so that Australia would not become a financial haven for terrorists.

On 21 December 2001, the Attorney-General Mr Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer issued a joint press release concerning the Gazettal of Terrorists and Terrorist Organisations Under the Charter of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations 2001. Extracts from the release follow:

We have today listed in the Australian Government Gazette the names of terrorists and terrorist organisations whose assets must be frozen by the holder of those assets under the Charter of the United Nations (Anti-terrorism Measures) Regulations 2001.

Our listing of these names implements Australia’s obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 to suppress the financing of terrorism. All countries are required to take these steps as part of global efforts to combat terrorism. This action shows the Government’s commitment to Australia playing its part to ensure that we do not become a financial haven for terrorists.

The Government places a very high priority on ensuring that these new measures are comprehensively and fairly implemented.

Transfer of Prisoners

On 21 August 2001, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand on the Transfer of Offenders and Co-operation in the Enforcement of Penal Sentences, done at Hanoi on 26 July 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

The Agreement will allow Australia to arrange for Australian nationals serving prison sentences in Thailand to return to Australia to serve out their sentences here. It will also allow Thai nationals serving sentences in Australian gaols to be repatriated to Thailand. Each transfer may only be made with the consent of both countries and the prisoner concerned.

Repatriating Australians in prison in Thailand has a number of benefits for Australia. It will relieve the hardship and burden on the relatives of the prisoner. It will facilitate the prospects of that prisoner’s rehabilitation. It will reduce the burden on Australian consular officials in Thailand. Transferring foreign nationals in Australian gaols to their countries of origin also benefits Australia because Australia will no longer have to pay the ongoing costs of their incarceration.

There has been growing public pressure over the last decade for Australia to participate in the international prisoner transfer scheme. This pressure has come from a wide range of individuals and groups, including parliamentarians, senior academics, human rights organisations, prisoner support groups, friends and families of prisoners, and the prisoners themselves. In addition, Australia has also been approached by a number of countries about the possibility of Australian involvement in prisoner transfers. The negotiation of a prisoner transfer treaty with Thailand has been a particular priority for some time. Thailand has a relatively high number of Australian nationals in its prisons (there are currently 12 Australians imprisoned in Thailand) and there has been pressure exerted, both through ministerial representations and through the media, for many of these prisoners to be returned to Australia to complete their sentences.

From an international perspective there are also good reasons for participating in the international prisoner transfer scheme. The international transfer of prisoners is forming an increasingly important part of international co-operation in the administration of criminal justice. Most of the developed countries of the world already participate in prisoner transfers and have done so for some time. These countries include the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and most European countries. The number of participating countries is continually increasing.

Under the scheme, the offender will continue to be punished, but the punishment will be in accordance with the humanitarian and rehabilitative ideals of his or her home country. The international prisoner transfer scheme appears to work well in a large number of other countries, including the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom. Participation in the international prisoner transfer scheme can be said to be recognising the humanitarian, rehabilitative and social objectives of prisoner transfers while ensuring, so far as possible, that the original custodial sentence of a transferred prisoner is carried out.

On 21 August 2001, the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, done at Strasbourg on 21 March 1983 was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the National Interest Analysis follow:

Acceding to the Convention will allow Australia to arrange for Australian nationals serving prison sentences in countries that are Parties to the Convention to return to Australia to serve out their sentences here. It will also allow nationals of Parties to the Convention serving sentences in Australian gaols to be repatriated to their countries of origin.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2002/10.html