Senator QUIRKE (4:32 PM) —On behalf of Senator Cooney and the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the following reports: 27th report: termination of social security agreement with the United Kingdom and International Plant Protection Convention and 28th report: fourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 1999 . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.

Leave granted.

Senator QUIRKE —I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Cooney's tabling statement in Hansard .

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

The two Reports I have just tabled deal with a total of 16 proposed treaty actions.

The two proposed treaty actions reviewed in Report 27 were tabled in the Parliament on 11 August 1999. The rest of that group was reviewed in Report 25, and these two were held over in order to provide interested groups with the opportunity to comment on the proposal before us.

Similarly, there were seventeen proposed treaty actions tabled on 12 October 1999. We have held three of that group over, to allow interested groups more time to give us their views. Relevant Ministers have been informed, and we will report on these matters as soon as practicable.

Of the agreements in these two Reports, the most noteworthy is probably the proposed termination of the Social Security Agreement with the UK, in Report 27. For its own reasons, the UK Government has refused to index pensions paid under this long standing agreement to its pensioners in this country. We have supported termination of the Agreement, but recommended that an additional year's notice should be given to reduce the chances of hardship to those who might be effected.

The Department responsible for this Agreement appeared before us without having undertaken any consultations with community groups that might be effected. It was, of course, the first time that the Department of Family and Community Services had encountered this Committee and its process.

This Committee has now been in existence for three and a half years and, in terms of its emphasis on consultation, it has been very consistent. I would have thought that the importance of consultation of interested groups and individuals about proposed treaty actions would have dawned on every Government agency by now.

It was therefore alarming to find another example of lack of consultation in the treaties reviewed in Report 28. This was in relation to the Consular Agreement with the People's Republic of China. While there are many Australia-Chinese business groups, no attempt had been made to contact any of them to ascertain what they thought about this proposed treaty.

This lack of action was from the agency responsible for managing the revised treaty-making process, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, making this lapse more worrying.

When he announced the establishment of the reformed treaty-making process in May 1996, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that consultation would be the key word. While I have already drawn attention to some lapses in this area in both Reports 27 and 28, in general the Minister's policy has been acted upon by most agencies, most of the time.

As our processes have settled down, we have attempted to extend our own consultative mechanisms. In June this year, the Committee held a very significant seminar, dealing with the involvement of Parliament in the treaty-making process.

One of the outcomes of that seminar was the expansion of our efforts to seek and use the views of the State and Territory Parliaments. Although we did not receive many comments from them for the treaties reviewed in these Reports, it seems that a number of the Parliaments are now looking at ways of involving themselves in this process. This can only make the revised treaty-making process in this country more effective.

The 15 sitting day rule under which we operate is, of course, going to limit the ability of State and Territory Governments and Parliaments to forward submissions to us in time for their comments to be included in our Reports.

Intensive use of such technologies as e-mail is, of course, playing a part in speeding the dispatch and receipt of material. We look forward to greater contributions from the State and Territory Governments and Parliaments.

These two Reports review a wide range of proposed treaty actions. We have made some additional comments, as well as recommending that binding treaty action be taken. We hope that the sponsoring agencies take note of these comments.

I commend Reports 27 and 28 to the Senate.