Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. The Attorney-General will be aware of the High Court's Teoh decision which decided that international treaty obligations could create procedural rights in domestic law. The Attorney-General will also be aware that the previous government made an executive statement in response to this and introduced legislation which lapsed with the calling of the last federal election. Can the Attorney-General advise the House what action his government intends to take in response to the Teoh decision?

Mr WILLIAMS —I am pleased to advise the House that the government has decided to take further action in response to the decision of the High Court in the Teoh case. This action will take the form of an executive statement, to be issued today jointly by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the statement will be followed by legislation.

Members will recall that the High Court held that the entry into a treaty by Australia gave rise to a legitimate expectation in administrative law that the executive government and its agencies would act in a manner consistent with the terms of the treaty even if those terms had not been incorporated in domestic law. This gave rise to a procedural right to be heard where an administrative decision maker proposed making a decision inconsistent with the expectation. However, the High Court made it clear that the legitimate expectation at administrative law could be set aside by the government either by legislation or by executive act.

Those opposite will recall that the previous government issued an executive statement on 10 May 1995, which set aside, for the past and for the future, expectations based on entry into treaties. We followed this up with legislation which lapsed on the calling of the last election. The executive statement to be issued today will reinforce this government's view that the Teoh doctrine detracts from the proper role of the parliament in passing legislation to give effect to treaties. The executive government undoubtedly has power to make Australia a party to a treaty, but it is for the Australian parliaments to change Australian law to implement Australian obligations.

Under this government, the parliament has a much greater role even in relation to the executive act of entering into a treaty—and I refer to the new treaty tabling procedures and to the consideration of all treaties by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is chaired by the member for Groom. The statement will be prospective. Administrative decisions between 10 May 1995 and the date of the new statement will continue to be covered by the 10 May 1995 statement made by the previous government. This is an issue on which previously there has been bipartisan support. I look forward to a continuation of it.