Senator MASON (4:04 PM) —I too would like to say a few words about the report on the ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. Firstly, I thank our chair, Ms Julie Bishop, my colleagues and the secretariat for doing a terrific job under difficult circumstances in quite a controversial area. I thank them all for their assistance.

This report was difficult to arrive at. In the end, there was unanimous agreement that the ICC statute should be ratified. It is no secret that, initially, I opposed ratification. I did so because—and perhaps this is a lesson—the departments advising us overclaimed. By `overclaimed' I mean that the committee was told that ratification of this statute would, in effect, change international relations; that it would deter war criminals. I do not accept that. I do not accept for a second that this is a great bounce forward in international relations. I also do not accept that it will ever deter the Slobodan Milosevics of the world. I think that, by overclaiming, the departments and many people who supported this—noble cause that it is—weakened their case. I am speaking for myself here, but I do not think I am the only person on the committee who feels this way. If we go back 12 months, we heard a series of witnesses—all well intentioned, all sincere, all noble—consistently saying that this was the answer to the world's problems and that it would deter war criminals. I do not accept it and, as I say, by overclaiming they weakened their case.

I would like to quickly mention a couple of potential legal problems and a problem of principle. I can see my friend Senator Schacht here today. He suggested that parliamentary oversight would not be a bad idea for this parliament to take up in its assessment of the International Criminal Court.

There are potential legal problems. Firstly, they arise because of the nature of international law, where crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity will be interpreted by the International Court of Justice and they are potentially at odds with Australian jurisprudence. Let me leave it at that. There is no reason why the jurisprudence of international law will remain consistent with the jurisprudence of this country. Secondly, the court's jurisdiction may increase and that also adds potential problems. For example, the crime of aggression may be added to the court's jurisdiction. The meaning of the crime `aggression' is still open to debate, and it is often difficult for Australian courts and our legal system to understand, or be in conjunction with, international law. Thirdly—I often have this problem, and I do not mind saying it here before my Senate colleagues—I find it difficult when Australians either are or potentially are taken before international forums where they are judged by the citizens of nations that have sometimes appalling human rights records. Let me say that and leave it at that. For me, that is a potential problem.

Fourthly, let me say this. I said this often in committee hearings, and I know my colleagues got tired of it, but I want to say it here in the Senate. I believe the International Criminal Court will be much more a thorn in the side of democracies than it will ever be for dictatorships or authoritarian or totalitarian countries. In other words, this nation can withstand adverse decisions made by international courts about our judicial system. We can withstand that, and we will do the right thing by any international tribunal and obey that—but the People's Republic of China will not. They will not change their legal system because there is an adverse finding in international law. My consistent problem, as an underlying principle, is this: in the end, it is only democratic nations that can accede to an adverse decision by an international tribunal. Authoritarian and totalitarian countries will do what they want to do.

However, having said that and having got that off my chest, the one great thing about the International Criminal Court and this statute is this: despite all the problems—and there are problems—it does provide a workable mechanism for the trial of war criminals. It is not an ad hoc tribunal at all, as is so difficult to set up through the auspices of the Security Council. I do not think it will act as a deterrent but it is a really useful mechanism for the trying of war criminals, and for that reason it is a worthwhile statute for Australia to ratify and I endorse the committee's findings. I do that in particular because of the inventive and creative comments of Senator Schacht, Ms Bishop and others who suggested to the committee that parliamentary oversight of the workings of the International Criminal Court would make it easier for this country and this government to be more confident about the workings of the International Criminal Court. I pay tribute to my colleagues for that. Thank you.