Senator McKIERNAN (4:19 PM) —by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 105th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held at Havana, Cuba, from 1 to 7 April 2001, and a bilateral visit to Mexico from 8 to 15 April 2001. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator McKIERNAN —I move:

The 105th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference debated and discussed a range of topics, including: securing observance of the principle of international law in the interests of world peace and security; education and culture as essential factors in promotion; the participation of men and women in political life as prerequisites for the development of peoples; contribution of world parliaments to the struggle against terrorism; and international action to meet the emergency situation in Afghanistan, compounded by the recent destruction of cultural heritage by the Taliban. Once again, all members of the delegation played an active role throughout the entire conference, participating in all facets of the conference agenda.

I take the opportunity now on behalf of the delegation to recognise the work of the adviser to the delegation, Mr Phillip Allars from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who ensured that the delegation members were thoroughly briefed on all matters that were being debated before the conference. As the delegation leader, Mr Somlyay, said yesterday in the other place, it is often said that Australia fights above its weight at these conferences. In Havana we fought in all divisions and literally were the only ones left standing at 4.30 p.m. on the eighth and final day of the conference.

The leader, Mr Somlyay, chaired the drafting committee that debated the motion on terrorism. The member for Pearce, Mrs Moylan, chaired the drafting committee of the education and culture motion. The member for Prospect, Mrs Crosio, continued to play a very active role on the executive of the women's committee. I, for my sins, was appointed rapporteur for the item on international law, and you will be pleased to know that I used my broadest Australian accent in presenting the report of the committee. I also had some work to do on the drafting of two publications for the IPU. They are a handbook for members of parliament on refugee law matters and a handbook for MPs on the worst forms of child labour. I got that additional task because of my role as senior vice-president of the second committee.

As Madam President and Mr Speaker would be aware, there are a number of concerns about how the IPU is operating. Those concerns were discussed at a special meeting of the Australian IPU group held in this house last week. Scrutiny, transparency and accountability are essential components of our Australian parliamentary system. Sadly, we are not seeing similar reflections from the IPU. It appears that many of the key decisions being adopted by the IPU are as a result of very limited consultation and debate. Equally disturbing is the realisation that many of the decisions are taken in apparent isolation from other decisions. There appears to be no overriding strategy; on the contrary, there appears to be a blind faith that, no matter what is decided, the IPU will have the resources to achieve these objectives.

I am sounding negative, and I do not necessarily want to sound negative, but the matters that are occurring within the IPU are of grave concern for this parliament and for many other democratic parliaments throughout the world. Not the least of what has happened has been the withdrawal from the IPU of the United States of America. Their contributions to the IPU represented some 15 per cent of the IPU budget. They have been gone from the IPU now for over three years. The IPU, within that period of time, have continued to spend as if the United States of America, with their 15 per cent of contributions, were still paying. Reserve funds have been depleted. There are proposals on the agenda within the IPU to move to new premises in Geneva. The budget for the new headquarters is of course blowing out and yet, when questions are asked within the council of the IPU, the answers that come back are certainly not satisfactory to the Australian delegation or to other delegations.

Compounding what is happening with the headquarters and with the expenditure of the reserves of the IPU is a proposal for even greater cooperation with the United Nations' system. That sounds good in theory, but as we state in the report at 3.19 on page 17:

Our concerns were raised, as I said earlier, at a meeting of the Australian IPU group here last week, which was attended by both the President and the Speaker. We have decided to put to the IPU that the matters of the reform of the IPU be addressed at the 107th conference of the IPU in Marrakesh. These matters, whether they become an agenda item for Marrakesh or not, will be determined at the forthcoming conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, in September this year. I trust and hope that the matters will be resolved. I do believe that the IPU has an important role to play in the international world of parliaments, but the way it is going, unfortunately, it could come a major cropper on that.

I now turn to the bilateral visit to Mexico and I want to make a few very brief comments. The official program included meetings with the presiding officers, the Minister for the Economy, the Deputy Foreign Minister, representatives from the Australia-Mexico business group and parliamentarians from all major political parties. These meetings engaged the delegation to discuss a range of subjects, including the strength of the ever growing and ever increasing bilateral relationship between Australia and Mexico and the progress of economic reforms in Mexico—particularly tax reform, privatisation and indigenous issues. All of these caused some little consternation within the delegation, but of course we were there representing the parliament. This shows where the sensitivities of those earlier matters that I have referred to in regard to the IPU can come out. There was no fudging on the issues as to where the representatives of the different political parties stood when we were responding to questions from representatives of different political parties in Mexico.

Other issues discussed were: the opening up of the economy and foreign investment, in particular the relationship between Mexico and the United States; the migratory pressures brought about by rural poverty; the political tensions in the south-east involving the Zapatistas, who are seeking some greater power for their individual peoples; the evolving relationship between the Congress and the President; and the hosting of the APEC conference in 2002.

The discussions were both frank and informative and left the delegation with a very clear impression that Mexico was making steady progress and is prepared to undertake the necessary reforms to address many of its key concerns. The delegation concluded its visit in the historic city of Oaxaca, which was made all the more memorable as it coincided with Easter. All up, it was a very informative and rewarding visit. On behalf of the delegation, I acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of the delegation secretary, Mr Peter Keele, who accompanied us throughout the delegation's visit. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.