Cavenagh, Jennifer --- "Australian Practice in International Law 2004" [2006] AUYrBkIntLaw 15; (2006) 25 Australian Year Book of International Law 463

• Australian Practice in International Law 2004
• I. International Law in General
• International Law: Australian perspectives
• II. Sovereignty, Independence and Self-Determination
• Afghanistan
• China
• Iraq
• State Sovereignty
• III. Aviation and Space Law
• Air Services Agreements – Poland
• Air Services Agreements – United Arab Emirates
• Aviation Security Agreement – United States
• Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air
• IV. Law of the Sea
• Fisheries – Bottom Trawling
• Fisheries – Bottom Trawling – High Seas Moratorium
• Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
• Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Antarctic Waters
• Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources – Centralised Vessel Monitoring System
• Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Volga Case
• Fisheries – United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement
• High Seas – Biodiversity
• High Seas – Biodiversity – Bioprospecting
• High Seas – Biodiversity – Ecosystem-Based Management – Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
• High Seas – Biodiversity – Marine Protected Areas
• Honolulu Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean
• Law of the Sea – Continental Shelf Submission
• Law of the Sea – Convention on the Law of the Sea
• Law of the Sea – Convention on the Law of the Sea – Resolutions 49(a) and (b)
• Maritime Boundaries – Timor-Leste
• Maritime Boundaries – Maritime Boundary Arbitration Mechanisms
• Maritime Boundaries – Maritime Identification Zone
• Maritime Boundaries – Negotiations
• Maritime Boundaries – Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic on Cooperation in the Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), Heard Island and the McDonald Islands
• Maritime Boundaries – Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Ze
• V. International Economic Law
• Agreement between Australia and New Zealand for the Establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products
• Agreement between Australia and the European Community on Trade in Wine
• Agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices
• Apia Declaration of Principles on Regional Transport Services
• Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation – Termination – Slovak Republic
• Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation – Vietnam – Most Favoured Nation Status
• Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Trade and Economic Framework – Japan
• Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Trade and Investment Framework – Egypt
• Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Bilateral Cooperation – Thailand
• Free Trade Agreements – APEC
• Free Trade Agreements – ASEAN/Australia/New Zealand Free Trade Area
• Free Trade Agreements – China
• Free Trade Agreements – New Zealand – Closer Economic Relations Agreement
• Free Trade Agreements – Singapore
• Free Trade Agreements – Thailand
• Free Trade Agreements – United States of America
• Investment Promotion and Protection – MOU – China
• South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement
• Telecommunications – Constitution of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity
• Telecommunications – Convention of the International Telecommunication Union
• Timor Sea Treaty – Oil and Gas Fields
• Trade Negotiations – Multilateral, Bilateral and Regional Negotiations – Interrelationship
• United Nations – Commission on International Trade Law
• United Nations – Development – 2005 UN Heads of Government Summit
• World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) – Copyright Treaty
• World Intellectual Property Organisation – Performances and Phonograms Treaty
• World Trade Organization – Disputes – EU Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
• World Trade Organization – Disputes – European Sugar Regime
• World Trade Organization – Freight Logistics Initiative
• World Trade Organization – Membership – Cambodia
• World Trade Organization – Membership – Saudi Arabia
• World Trade Organization – Membership – Vietnam
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Agriculture
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – APEC
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Development Agenda
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – WTO DOHA Round Framework Package
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – General Agreement on Trade in Services
• World Trade Organization – Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Wine
• World Trade Organization – Negotiations – Australian Ambassador to the WTO Appointed Chairperson of Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) Review Negotiations
• World Wine Trade Group
• VI. Individuals
• Human Rights
• Human Rights – Anti-Semitism
• Human Rights – Bilateral Dialogue
• Human Rights – Children
• Human Rights – Children – Armed Conflict
• Human Rights – Good Governance
• Human Rights – Indigenous Peoples
• Human Rights – Indigenous Peoples – Indigenous Women
• Human Rights – International Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
• Human Rights – National Framework for Human Rights
• Human Rights – Refugees
• Human Rights – Refugees – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in the Management of Asylum Seekers and Related Issues – Nauru
• Human Rights – Situations – Bangladesh
• Human Rights – Situations – Burma
• Human Rights – Situations – Cambodia
• Human Rights – Situations – China
• Human Rights – Situations – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
• Human Rights – Situations – Democratic Republic of Congo
• Human Rights – Situations – Indonesia
• Human Rights – Situations – Iran
• Human Rights – Situations – Iraq
• Human Rights – Situations – Laos
• Human Rights – Situations – Syria
• Human Rights – Situations – Uganda
• Human Rights – Situations – Vanuatu
• Human Rights – Situations – Vietnam
• Human Rights – Situations – Zimbabwe
• Human Rights – Status of Women
• Human Rights –The Role of Men and Boys in Gender Equality
• Human Rights – Status of Women – Violence against Women
• Human Rights – Status of Women – Women, Peace and Security
• Human Rights – Torture
• Human Rights – United Nations
• Human Rights – United Nations Commission on Human Rights
• Human Rights – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Social Law – WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Social Law – Working Holiday Arrangements – Thailand
• VII. Diplomatic and Consular Relations
• Diplomatic Protection
• Iraq
• Kuwait
• Libya
• Nauru
• Overseas Missions – Security
• Vietnam
• VIII. Treaties
• Treaty-Making Process
• Treaty Action
• IX. International Organisations
• Asian Development Bank
• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• International Fund for Agricultural Development
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
• United Nations – Reform
• United Nations – Reform – Disarmament Machinery
• United Nations – Reform – Human Rights Mechanisms
• United Nations – Reform – Operational Activities for Development
• United Nations – Reform – Security Council
• World Tourism Organization
• X. International Environmental Law
• Climate Change – Australia–New Zealand Bilateral Climate Change Partnership
• Climate Change – Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Climate Change Activities
• Climate Change – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol)
• On Climate Change – U.S. – Australia Climate Action Partnership
• International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law
• Illegal Logging – Papua New Guinea
• Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation – Australia and US
• Memorandum of Agreement – Coral Reef Management
• Regional Initiatives – Regional Natural Heritage Program
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
• Sustainable Development
• Sustainable Development – Water Resource Management
• Whaling – Amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
• Whaling – Commercial Whaling
• Whaling – Scientific Whaling
• World Heritage Areas
• XI. Disputes
• Cyprus
• India and Pakistan
• Indonesia – Aceh
• Middle East
• Nepal
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• XII. Law of Armed Conflict and Security Matters
• Armed Conflict – Iraq – Multilateralism
• Armed Conflict – Iraq – Post-Conflict Rehabilitation
• Armed Conflict – Iraq – Security Council Resolution 1546
• Biological Weapons – Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stoc
• Conventional Weapons – Anti-Personnel Mines
• Conventional Weapons – Small Arms
• Defence Cooperation – United States of America
• Defence Cooperation – United States of America – Memorandum of Understanding on Missile Defence
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Humanitarian Intervention – Civilians in Conflict
• Humanitarian Intervention – Responsibility to Protect
• International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources
• International Atomic Energy Agency – Strengthened Safeguards System
• Missiles – International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation
• Missiles – Man-portable Air Defence Systems
• Peacekeeping
• Peacekeeping – Haiti
• Peacekeeping – Solomon Islands
• Regional Security
• Regional Security – ANZUS
• Regional Security – ANZUS – United States of America
• Regional Security – Australia and New Zealand Border Security Arrangement
• Regional Security – Japan
• Regional Security – Middle East – Israeli Security Barrier
• Regional Security – Nauru
• Regional Security – Papua New Guinea – Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation
• Regional Security – Port Security
• Sanctions – Zimbabwe
• Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia
• United Nations Mission of Support – Timor-Leste
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Ballistic Missile Defence
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Proliferation Security Initiative
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Resolution 1540 – Security Council Resolution on Proliferation
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Moratorium on New Enrichment and Reprocessing Plants
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – India and Pakistan
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Iran
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Iraq
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Korean Peninsula
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Libya
• Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Middle East
• XIII. Criminal Law
• Corruption – United Nations Convention Against Corruption
• International Criminal Court
• International Criminal Tribunals – International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
• International Criminal Tribunals – Security Council Resolution 1534 – War Criminals
• Terrorism – Australia
• Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism Declarations – Australia-ASEAN Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism
• Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism – United Nations
• Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism – United Nations – 1267 Committee
• Terrorism – Philippines
• Terrorism – Proliferation
• Terrorism – Regional Security
• Transnational Organised Crime – The Bali Process
• Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – The Bahamas
• Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – Bulgaria and Romania
• Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – Indonesia
• Transnational Organised Crime – United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime – Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (People Smuggling Protocol)
• United Nations – Convention on the Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel

Australian Practice in International Law 2004

Compiled and edited by

Jennifer Cavenagh

Supervised by

Justine Braithwaite

Legal Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I. International Law in General

International Law: Australian perspectives

On 27 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the International Law Conference entitled ‘The Challenge of Conflict, International Law Responds’. Extracts from the speech follow:

The cold war was a clash between two systems. The West and democracy emerged victorious, and no decent individual should mourn the end of the Soviet Union. But the bipolar system that existed throughout the cold war had a rigidity of structure that brought a level of international order. And the massive nuclear arsenals possessed by both sides meant that competition took place within accepted parameters. This was a relatively sedate time for international law. After the extraordinary burst of energy following World War 2, it settled into a phase of consolidation. Significant advances were made in areas such as the law of the sea, environmental law, air and space law and the codification of customary international law

. But, essentially, international law was left to warm its hands before the fire of State sovereignty.

This is now a time for new dynamism and new thinking. The nature of the world we live in and the threats we face from terrorism, the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and weak and failing states necessitate this. Volumes of resolutions not acted upon, international agreements without teeth and endless set piece debates about issues are no longer indulgences the international community can afford.

The Government’s approach to international law mirrors our pragmatic approach to foreign and trade policy. International law is a means to an end; not an end in itself. We look to international law to achieve outcomes and serve both national and global interests. And this is also the challenge to you –to make international law relevant in the face of collapsing states, terrorist groups that work outside any international norms, the proliferation of WMD and the threat posed by rogue nations.

…

The prestige and effectiveness of international law depends in large part on its ability to resolve international problems and address international concerns. International law should be there to serve the interests of Australians and of humanity.

I am proud of what Australia has done in our own region and more widely to address situations of conflict and the security challenges facing our world. We recognize that international law can only maintain its credibility when there exists the international will to enforce it. We also recognize that international law must adapt to the changing world around it.

Responsible states cannot and should not shy away from today’s challenges – to do so leaves far too much at risk in the current international security environment.

On 13 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law entitled ‘Harnessing the International System for Peace and Prosperity’. Extracts from the speech follow:

I come to politics with a deep respect for the rule of law. If respect for the rule of law dissolves within a State, what quickly follows is the triumph of political thuggery. And I come to foreign policy with an abiding belief in the need for a rules-based international system. But one which is flexible enough to find the correct balance between respect for sovereignty and the reinforcement of human rights, democracy and freedom. These are issues I would like to address in my remarks today.

…

The Government recognises that a rules-based international system has delivered a great deal in the way of stability and security across Australia’s foreign and trade policy interests. In the current international environment, the Government takes an outcomes-focused approach to its international agenda. Transnational terrorism, the risks of WMD proliferation involving rogue States or non-State actors and the threats posed by weak and failing States underline for us an important fact – that international security today is indivisible …

… that is, what happens in one corner of the globe impacts on others – whether the Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa or the Americas. It is crucial to take action to address these challenges…

… which means we must look to use and develop international law and international norms in a range of ways.

The international legal system – with the body of the UN at its core – retains a unique and important role in international efforts to address contemporary threats. But it cannot remain static. International law must be dynamic in nature and develop to deal effectively with 21st century political and geostrategic realities, and address contemporary threats and challenges. For these reasons, practical action and cooperation, regionally and bilaterally, are more important than ever to enhancing security and prosperity and to bolstering the international system. Our successes in East Timor, Solomon Islands and in building regional cooperation on counter-terrorism are a testament to this approach …

… and show that results can be achieved if States are prepared to harness the international system in a practical way.

But while we are able to find innovative ways to deal with issues, the international community is working within a system of international law that is yet to fully face the realities of modern statehood, abuses of sovereignty and a mature discussion of humanitarian intervention.

…

I have advocated that international law must evolve to meet the challenges of the new world we are living in. But we must also be careful to avoid interpreting the rules of international law in a manner that may not lead to enhanced stability.

II. Sovereignty, Independence and Self-Determination

Afghanistan

On 5 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release welcoming the agreement on Afghanistan’s new Constitution. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the recent agreement by Loya Jirga, Afghanistan’s grand assembly, on a new constitution and hope this will help bring stability and unity to Afghanistan. The new constitution, approved by consensus, is a significant step towards consolidating Afghanistan’s diverse population. It will be essential now for all parties to work together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise so the country can move forward peacefully.

On 28 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release regarding the Afghan presidential elections. An extract from the release follows:

Australia will provide an additional $2 million to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to further support preparations for Afghanistan’s presidential elections planned for October this year.

The UNDP is coordinating the electoral process in partnership with the Afghan Transitional Administration.

This follows an allocation of $2 million in February this year to support UNDP to undertake voter registration among Afghanistan’s estimated 9.3 million voters and brings Australia’s total contribution towards the electoral process in Afghanistan to $4 million.

Australia’s total assistance to Afghanistan since September 2001 stands at $110 million, making it Australia’s third largest humanitarian effort, exceeded only by East Timor and Iraq.

This funding will assist Afghan electoral authorities with election and resource management, arrange for out of country voting, provide information and civic education to voters, assist with media monitoring and coordinate domestic and international election observers.

The presidential elections will be followed by parliamentary elections planned for April 2005. The Afghan Transitional Administration will continue to govern until the elections are held.

Australia is committed to helping Afghanistan build a new and brighter future. Successful presidential elections are a crucial step in Afghanistan’s transition towards a peaceful and democratic nation.

On 13 October 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release on the presidential election in Afghanistan. An extract from the release follows:

I congratulate the people of Afghanistan on their country’s presidential election on 9 October. This is a significant milestone in a country that has only recently emerged from more than two decades of war.

The high voter turnout, especially by women, is an enthusiastic endorsement of the democratic process and a clear demonstration by the people of Afghanistan of their desire to determine their own future. I am encouraged that the voting was not marred by major security incidents.

I am aware of reports of possible voting abnormalities. I am confident that the Joint Electoral Management Body will thoroughly investigate and address the issues. Although counting of votes will take some time to complete, I hope that the people of Afghanistan accept the election outcome and support their new, democratically elected President.

The presidential election marks another step in Afghanistan’s democratic transformation. Australia remains strongly committed to partnering Afghanistan as that process continues.

On 8 December 2004, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, answered a question without notice in relation to the inauguration of the President of Afghanistan. An extract from Mr Howard’s response follows:

I want to remark very briefly on a memorable moment for democracy around the world and that is the other election that was held on 9 October, the one that was held in Afghanistan and led to the election of President Karzai. It is the first time there has been a democratically installed government in Afghanistan. It is something that we very warmly welcome. It has been a long and hard march for the people of Afghanistan, and the men and women of the Australian Defence Force played a major role in the liberation of that country and the expulsion from government of the brutal dictatorship of the Taliban.

On 9 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release regarding the Afghan presidential inauguration. An extract from the release follows:

I congratulate Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai on his inauguration in Kabul.

Mr Karzai’s election as Afghanistan’s first directly elected president represents a new start for the country after decades of civil war.

Australia donated $4 million to facilitate voter registration for the presidential elections at which the Afghan people roundly endorsed the democratic process. I was especially encouraged by the high turnout of women voters at polling stations across the country.

At his inauguration, President Karzai acknowledged the international community’s contribution which had enabled his country to free the bonds of tyranny.

Australia’s aid to Afghanistan totals $110 million since September 2001 – our third largest humanitarian effort.

We are also helping Afghanistan devise crop replacement strategies for opium poppies and border control.

Australia is committed to partnering Afghanistan in its continuing re-emergence and transformation into a stable, democratic member of the international community.

China

On 23 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release on the appointment of a Consul-General in Hong Kong. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government supports strongly Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” under Chinese sovereignty as provided for by the Basic Law, which sets out Hong Kong’s constitutional framework. Open and accountable government and economic systems, the rule of law and civil society will continue to be the key to Hong Kong’s success as a major international city and business centre.

Iraq

On 2 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the formation of an Interim Iraqi Government. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the formation of an Interim Iraqi Government to administer Iraq from 30 June after the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the end of the occupation by Coalition forces.

This marks another milestone in Iraq’s progress from dictatorship to democracy. The Interim Government will govern Iraq until elections are held by 31 January 2005. I support the creation of an independent Iraqi Electoral Commission, that will oversee the elections with the assistance of the United Nations.

I commend UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi for facilitating the Interim Government’s formation by holding wide-ranging consultations with Iraqis from all walks of life. Australia strongly supports the role of the United Nations in Iraq’s political transition and in the country’s broader rehabilitation.

I urge the UN Security Council to act quickly to pass a resolution supporting the transfer of authority to the Interim Government and encouraging greater involvement by the international community in Iraq’s stabilisation and rehabilitation.

The Interim Government’s composition includes six women and reflects the ethnic and religious diversity of the Iraqi people. It includes Iraqis who suffered under Saddam’s brutal tyranny as well as those forced to flee the country.

While circumstances in Iraq will remain challenging as terrorists and retrograde Iraqi elements try to disrupt the political process, the Coalition and the United Nations are committed to helping the Iraqi people forge ahead with their transition to representative government.

On 9 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release welcoming United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 on the situation in Iraq. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome the unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council of a landmark resolution on Iraq. The resolution marks the beginning of a new era in Iraq.

It underscores the steady progress in building a peaceful and prosperous future for Iraq. And it underwrites that plan into the future.

The Security Council notes the end of Iraq’s occupation and endorses the formation of a new Interim Government of Iraq which will assume full sovereignty, authority and responsibility for governing Iraq by 30 June 2004. The Council also endorses the timetable for Iraq’s transition to democratic government agreed by the Iraqis themselves in the landmark Transitional Administrative Law adopted on 8 March. The significant input of the Iraqis themselves, especially the Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari, is particularly welcome.

The resolution defines a significant role for the UN in supporting Iraq’s political transition, including in planning for national elections. Australia strongly supports the UN’s role.

The resolution recognises the continuing security challenges in Iraq, and the need for international support to keep the political transition on track. It also acknowledges that arrangements are being put in place to establish a new partnership between the multinational force and the Interim Iraqi Government and to ensure effective coordination.

The Security Council’s action underscores the imperative of the broad international community lending its support to the new Iraqi

Government and assisting Iraq’s stabilisation and reconstruction. Regardless of countries’ past differences, a stable and prosperous Iraq is in everyone’s interests.

On 28 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release regarding the transfer of full authority to the Iraqi Interim Government. An extract from the release follows:

Today’s transfer of full authority to the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government in Baghdad is an historic step forward for the people of Iraq. With the resumption of sovereignty, Iraqis will have the opportunity to build a democratic and prosperous nation.

The Iraqi people are prepared for this day. They are already exercising effective authority over Iraq’s institutions. All ministries have been transferred to Iraqi leadership over the last few months as administrative capacity has developed.

The handover also marks the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I congratulate Ambassador Bremer and all CPA staff on their efforts to assist Iraq’s recovery from three and a half decades of tyranny.

Australia has played an important role in preparing Iraq for this day. I want to thank the dedicated Australian military and civilian personnel whose considerable efforts in difficult and dangerous circumstances have helped support Iraq’s stabilisation and rehabilitation.

The future for Iraq and her people will be difficult. Terrorists will stop at nothing to derail efforts to deliver freedom to the Iraqi people as recent attacks have shown.

Iraq’s interim government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Allawi and President al-Yawar, has made a strong stand against these terrorists. But they have made it clear they want the international community’s support. The Australian Defence Force, working with coalition partners and now NATO will continue to help Iraq develop its security forces.

The next crucial step for Iraq will be national elections due by the end of January next year. The UN is already supporting electoral preparations and will assist in convening the national political conference in July to promote dialogue and reconciliation.

On 20 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release concerning the Iraq National Conference. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the successful conclusion of the Iraq National Conference held this week.

The Conference was a clear demonstration of democracy in action in Iraq. It was attended by 1200 delegates, including 275 women. Participants came from across the country and represented a broad range of ethnic, religious and tribal groups.

The key outcome of the conference was the appointment of a 100-strong Interim National Council. This is an important transitional step in Iraq’s political development.

The Interim National Council will have the authority to monitor the implementation of laws, appoint replacements to the Presidency council, veto executive orders by a two-thirds majority vote and approve the 2005 Iraqi national budget.

The council will serve until Iraq’s national elections due to be held in January next year. These will be the first national elections since the removal of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.

Discussion at the conference also covered a wide range of issues, including the requirements for developing democracy in Iraq, Saddam’s legacy, security issues, the role of women, anti-corruption measures and a range of tribal and regional issues.

I congratulate the conference chairman, Dr Fouad Masoum, whose skilful management of this complex process was critical to the overall success of the conference. I also welcome the participation of the UN Special Representative to Iraq Ashraf Jehangir Qazi.

Australia continues to support Iraq’s political development process by working closely with the Interim Iraqi Government, the United Nations and the international community in Iraq. The Government has directed $5 million towards supporting preparations for Iraq’s national elections.

On 9 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice in relation to Australia’s involvement in Iraq. Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

First of all, we want to see elections in Iraq on 30 January. We will do everything we can to contribute to those elections taking place. The free people of Iraq should be entitled to vote. Despite the efforts of terrorists to stop them voting, I know there is enormous determination in the international community to ensure they can vote. We are assisting with the electoral process. We committed $5 million through the United Nations in support of that process and $1 million for governance initiatives. Indeed, members may be interested to know that two Iraqi electoral officials observed our own Australian federal election in October. Interjection

…

State Sovereignty

On 13 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law entitled ‘Harnessing the International System for Peace and Prosperity’. Extracts from the speech follow:

The world is changing rapidly, and so must the way we look at it.

…

I am a strong believer in the central importance of sovereignty as a pillar in our current system of international relations. As a modern democratic country in Australia we place a high value on our sovereignty and have consistently come to the aid of others to protect their sovereignty.

That said, the principle of State sovereignty, crucial though it is, is not monolithic or immutable. The notion that actions and events within a State’s borders remain absolutely shielded from outside interference is, in today’s world, problematic and unsustainable.

In a statement to the 54th Session of UNGA in 1999 I said that ‘ In the face of acts of genocide, or of human rights abuses on an horrendous scale, the nations of the world must act’. Put simply, the international community cannot stand by and allow perpetrators of genocide and other egregious human rights abuses free rein. The break-up of Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia and Serbia saw some of the worst atrocities Europe had witnessed since the Holocaust. It saw questions about the inviolability of State sovereignty brought to a head. Faced with a clear choice between preventing acts of genocide and other grave breaches of human rights, or respect for absolute sovereignty at any cost, a choice was made for the former.

Some years on, this is still a complex question for the international community and it continues to confound it at times. Some countries have been accused of picking and choosing when to forcibly intervene in a sovereign nation. And it is true that actions taken by States interceding in world conflicts have been inconsistent. But the political reality is that there are a number of factors at play including geopolitical factors, domestic pressures, national interests, and legal constraints. Governments are placed in a dilemma. If they intervene in response to a humanitarian catastrophe, arguments can arise, as they did in the case of Kosovo, about the legal basis for intervention. On the other hand if they do not intervene in such a case, they are accused of inaction. The causes of hesitance in such matters are complex, but regrettably the effects can be disastrous as was seen in the case of, say, Rwanda.

Where this leaves us is still searching for a better way to manage international interventions.

III. Aviation and Space Law

Air Services Agreements – Poland

On 7 December 2004, the Air Services Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Poland, done at Warsaw on 28 April 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The purpose of the treaty is to provide legal certainty for air services to operate between Australia and Poland, thereby facilitating trade and tourism between the two countries through freight and passenger transportation and providing greater air travel options for Australian consumers.

The Agreement provides a legal framework for the operation of scheduled air services between Australia and Poland by the designated airlines of both countries. This framework provides for access by Australian airlines to Poland and for the development of air services between Australia and Poland based on capacity levels decided between the aeronautical authorities of the Parties. The Agreement also increases the opportunities for the Australian community, in particular the tourism and export industries, to access Poland.

Air Services Agreements – United Arab Emirates

On 7 December 2004, the Air Services Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates, done at Dubai on 8 September 2002, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The purpose of the treaty is to provide legal certainty for direct air services to operate between Australia and the United Arab Emirates, which will facilitate trade and tourism between the two countries through freight and passenger transportation and provide greater air travel options for Australian consumers.

The Agreement obliges Australia and the United Arab Emirates to allow the designated airlines of each country to operate scheduled air services carrying passengers and cargo between the two countries on the specified routes. To facilitate these services, the Agreement also includes reciprocal provisions on a range of aviation-related matters such as safety, security, customs regulation, and the commercial aspects of airline operations, including the ability to establish offices in the territory of the other Party and to sell fares to the public.

Aviation Security Agreement – United States

On 8 May 2004, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, issued a press release announcing the signature of a new Australia-United States aviation security deal. An extract from the release follows:

Air security officers will be deployed on flights between Australia and the United States following the signing of a landmark reciprocal agreement between the two countries, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, announced today.

The arrangements, formalised today at a ceremony in Perth attended by Senator Ellison and the United States Ambassador, His Excellency Mr Thomas Schieffer, will allow the deployment of US air marshals on US-registered flights and Australian Air Security Officers (ASOs) on Australian flights to and from Australia and the United States.

Senator Ellison said details about the timing and nature of the deployment of air security officers, and ongoing negotiations with other countries to put in place similar arrangements, would remain confidential.

On 1 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, issued a press release announcing the signing of a Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism with ASEAN. An extract from the release follows:

This Declaration reflects our shared determination to work together as a region to eliminate international terrorism and reinforces the unprecedented levels of cooperation Australia has developed with ASEAN countries in fighting this threat.

Australia is providing extensive assistance to boost counter-terrorism measures in areas such as law enforcement, border control and transport security.

Together with Indonesia, Australia also co-chaired the Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism in Bali in February 2004 and is actively engaged in taking forward practical outcomes agreed at the meeting.

Australia has concluded bilateral counter-terrorism Memorandums of Understanding with several ASEAN and other Asia-Pacific countries.

The Declaration builds on these existing arrangements and underlines the closeness of Australia's ties with ASEAN in this 30th anniversary year of formal Australia-ASEAN relations.

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air

On 4 August 2004, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal on 28 May 1999, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

It is proposed that Australia accede to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal on 28 May 1999 (Montreal Convention). In accordance with Article 53, the Montreal Convention will enter into force for Australia on the sixtieth day following the date of deposit of an instrument of accession with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

The Montreal Convention updates and will eventually replace the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, done at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 (the Warsaw Convention) and a number of subsequent Conventions and Protocols, which together form the ‘Warsaw System’. This system provides an international treaty framework for liability rules governing commercial international aviation travel, and for documentation such as tickets and air waybills. At present it consists of a confusing array of different versions of the Warsaw Convention, and its liability limits, and provisions relating to documentation are out of date.

The Montreal Convention provides a new uniform code that modernises the international air carriers’ liability framework and provides measures such as electronic documentation to assist the smooth movement of air passengers, baggage and cargo. Most of Australia’s major aviation partners are Parties to the Montreal Convention.

By acceding to the Montreal Convention, Australia will maintain its international standing as a lead nation in international aviation reform. Accession will also allow Australian carriers, passengers and cargo-forwarders to benefit from the updated and improved provisions in relation to most international air travel to and from Australia.

IV. Law of the Sea

Fisheries – Bottom Trawling

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly regarding bottom trawling. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia was surprised that so much of the negotiation of this year’s fisheries resolution was devoted to the issue of bottom trawling. Australia has been a longstanding champion of high seas biodiversity conservation. We realize that some fishing practices have damaged important biodiversity, and that in some areas this damage is continuing.

Australia is concerned, however, that fishing practices which are not destructive of high seas biodiversity might also be penalised if we take too broad an approach. The efficacy of measures we take will in part depend on their ability to differentiate between genuinely destructive and non-destructive practices, and between those flag States that are prepared to control their nationals’ activities and those that are not. Australia will allow its nationals to build a sustainable longline and trawl industry in the waters of the southern oceans. At the same time, we will continue to ensure, consistent with paragraph 66 of the fisheries resolution, that fishing is conducted responsibly and with observer coverage. We will also continue to work hard to improve governance in the high seas more generally.

On 26 November 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, issued a joint press release concerning deep ocean habitats. Extracts from the release follow:

Senator Campbell said that Australia would support a United Nations move to protect areas of high biodiversity significance from destructive fishing practices where it was warranted in waters beyond national jurisdiction on the “high seas”. Australia has also called for improved international governance on the high seas to protect the marine environment and to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Senator Campbell said he was concerned about the environmental impact of less responsible forms of bottom trawling, which can damage the ocean floor and undersea mountains. “Seamounts are recognised by science as the nurseries for productive fisheries and are abundant in diverse marine life.” he said. “The Howard Government has already moved to protect seamounts within the national 200 nautical mile zone to the south-east of Tasmania.”

There are more than 100,000 known seamounts in the world, including many in the Tasman Sea. Several Australian commercial fish, including Orange Roughy, are based on seamount populations and several prospective fisheries are being assessed by the Australian fishing industry around seamounts in the Indian Ocean.

Fisheries – Bottom Trawling – High Seas Moratorium

On June 9 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations

Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting in relation to the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

Let me provide Australia’s initial response to the call for a moratorium, or moratoria, on bottom trawling of seamounts. We are encouraged that this call is a sign of the increasing concern about activities on the high seas and the impacts on the unique biodiversity that inhabits the deep oceans. It is also a recognition of the existing governance gaps in respect of high seas biodiversity.

Australia is also sympathetic to the underlying principle behind the call for a moratorium: that where features of high biodiversity significance are under threat then action should be taken.

The more imminent the threat, the more immediate the action should be.

Australia also realises that temporary closures for fisheries management purposes are a widely used and accepted tool in sustainable fisheries management, and in fact are contemplated by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (although a temporary closure of the extent suggested would be one of an almost unprecedented scale).

Having said all that, Australia is not yet in the position to express a final view on the generalised call for a moratorium, as we currently understand it, and we will not be able to arrive at a firm position until there is a greater level of specification, including details on, for instance:

• Areas over which it would apply

• Modalities

• How it would be enforced

• How long it would apply

• What processes are proposed to either confirm or lift the moratorium

We should also note that bottom-trawling is only one of the potential threats to the conservation and management of biodiversity in the high seas.

In saying that, we note that the most recent meeting of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species agreed to identify IUU fishing as a threatening process for seabirds, including those whose ranges cover predominantly areas beyond national jurisdiction. In focusing on bottom-trawling, we must not lose sight of such other threats.

Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia has long been a proponent of strengthened measures to tackle illegal fishing. We continue to act firmly against unlicensed vessels fishing in Australian waters, whatever their flags.

But are we doing all we can to bring uncontrolled fishing to an end? Perhaps treating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as a single problem reduced to an acronym has out lived its usefulness. After all, such fishing is not one problem but three, each of which requires separate international policy responses. Those responses must be based on flag States’ responsibility for the activities of their fishing vessels on the high seas or in other States’ exclusive economic zones. Making States accountable for those activities must become a focus of our efforts.

Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Antarctic Waters

On 24 October 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, issued a press release concerning Southern Ocean fishing pirates. An extract from the release follows:

Australia will turn up the heat on Southern Ocean fishing pirates at the annual meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations starting in Hobart tomorrow (Monday).

The Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said the Government would seek to secure agreement by member nations of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to end illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic waters.

“If the commission is to be really effective in its role as protector of Southern Ocean marine life it needs to be pragmatic in adopting solutions that will ensure fish stocks are not wiped out,” Senator Campbell said.

“The Australian Government has committed to delivering on its promise to stamp out illegal fishing in Antarctic waters and will provide $89.3 million over two years to improve patrolling in the Southern Ocean.”

Senator Campbell said Australia, with co-sponsors New Zealand and the United States, would push for the meeting to adopt a centralised vessel monitoring system to thwart poaching.

“There is already in-principle support from many member countries and there will be a concerted effort to convince others that centralised monitoring of vessels is an essential tool in the fight against illegal fishing,” he said.

Senator Campbell said a centralised system would allow members to independently verify fishing vessels’ positions and movements from information fed to the commission’s secretariat in Hobart.

The proposal requires agreement by all 24 commission members to come into force.

Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources – Centralised Vessel Monitoring System

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia has long been a proponent of strengthened measures to tackle illegal fishing. We continue to act firmly against unlicensed vessels fishing in Australian waters, whatever their flags. We are pleased to have seen, earlier this month, the adoption by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources of a centralised vessel monitoring system.

No single measure will do more to combat the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing that has been going on in the Southern Ocean for far too long.

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Symposium ‘Strategic Directions for Australia and the Law of the Sea’ entitled ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Ten Years of benefits for Australia’. An extract from the speech follows:

Australia’s fisheries resources represent an extraordinary source of sustenance and livelihood for countless people in Australia and overseas. We are determined to protect and sustainably manage these resources. In this context, Australia has also been at the forefront of international efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – also known by the acronym IUU – and has been active in protecting its sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone.

I was delighted to learn that this year’s annual meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources – or CCAMLR – held earlier this month in Hobart, adopted a resolution establishing a centralised vessel monitoring system (cVMS) – an Australian proposal. The system – or cVMS as it is termed – will provide tamper-proof, near real-time monitoring of vessels fishing in the CCAMLR area. No single measure will do more to combat IUU fishing, in particular of over-harvested Patagonian Toothfish stocks in the Southern Ocean.

Australia also recently concluded a fisheries surveillance and cooperation agreement with France to further cooperation in combating IUU fishing, particularly in our adjacent maritime zones in the Southern Ocean. It is a little known fact that Australia’s maritime boundaries with France constitute, we believe, the longest French boundaries with any country. The first joint patrols have already taken place under this treaty.

In the meantime, we are negotiating with France and South Africa on bilateral fisheries enforcement treaties, which will extend cooperation even further. We are also looking at working with countries which share our interests to utilise modern remote sensing technology to catch pirate fishers at a place and time of our choosing.

And are working towards a 21st century definition of ‘hot pursuit’. Recent high profile apprehensions of the Uruguayan-flagged Viarsa I in October 2003 and the Maya V early this year illustrated Australia’s commitment to prosecute to the fullest extent its entitlements under the Convention, including the right of hot pursuit. Those of you who followed the case of the Viarsa I will be aware that the apprehension followed the longest hot pursuit in naval history and drew on the assistance of a number of other States.

Fisheries – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – Volga Case

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Symposium ‘Strategic Directions for Australia and the Law of the Sea’ entitled ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Ten Years of Benefits for Australia’. An extract from the speech follows:

The Volga Case in which Australia was defendant before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea represented a small but positive shift in attitude on the part of the Tribunal in dealing with illegal fishing.

In that case, an attempt was made to use the judicial processes under the Convention on behalf of the owners of a vessel illegally plundering Patagonian Toothfish to avoid the consequences of their illegal acts.

In contrast to some previous cases, the Tribunal, consistent with the submissions of Australia, set the bond at the full value of the vessel as well as its catch – the first case in which this has ever happened. This shift in jurisprudence was a useful step in deterring IUU fishing, although much remains to be done.

Fisheries – United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

On 9 June 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting on the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

More effective governance of fishing activities is also required to ensure effective conservation and management of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement sets out clear obligations. Where regional fisheries management organisations relating to stocks covered by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement do not exist, they should be created. Where there are existing regional fisheries management organisations, they should be updated to conform to the principles set out in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The adoption of effective and robust regional fisheries management agreements, complete with effective enforcement and compliance regimes, is essential to ensure sustainable fisheries management, using an ecosystem based approach, at the regional level. Australia encourages States which have not yet done so to become party to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the FAO Compliance Agreement and FAO Code of Conduct, to become party to relevant regional agreements, and to comply with and enforce measures associated with these agreements.

Such instruments are a crucial part of the process of improving high seas fisheries management, and as a contribution to the conservation of biodiversity.

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly regarding oceans and the law of the sea. An extract from the statement follows:

Turning to fisheries, Australia welcomes the fact that, since our last session, the European Community and many of its Member States, as well as Kenya, have become Parties to the Fish Stocks Agreement. This adds significantly to the gravitational pull the Agreement is exercising on the general international law of fisheries.

High Seas – Biodiversity

On 7 June 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, issued a press release on high seas biodiversity conservation. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government has taken the lead in promoting the sustainability of the high seas during debate in the United Nations today.

In an important debate that coincides with World Oceans Day tomorrow, Australia aims to win agreement from other nations to work towards more sustainable management of the high seas by ensuring that biodiversity conservation and management is included in the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution later this year on oceans and the international law of the sea.

“All nations have a combined responsibility to ensure that the international ocean territory beyond national jurisdictions are sustainability managed,” Dr Kemp said.

“Our highseas oceans are vulnerable because they are not governed with the same controls that are in place in domestic waters. This has the potential to lead to a classic tale of the tragedy of the commons unless we can put in place sustainability structures to ensure the oceans wealth is there for future generations as well as for today.

“Australia hopes to lead by example and is already working with New Zealand on measures to protect the ocean ‘commons’ between our island nations.”

…

Australia first raised the importance of high seas biodiversity conservation and sustainable management during the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1999. It was again pursued through the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, the World Parks Congress, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, in which the Australian delegation is currently involved.

“It is said we know less about our deep oceans than we do about the surface of Mars but as the nation with the world’s largest ocean jurisdiction, Australia has a special interest in this issue,” Dr Kemp said.

On 9 June 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting in relation to the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

In Annex III of the annotated agenda there is a series of questions designed to guide and provoke our discussions. One of these questions is: “Does the existing international regime sufficiently address the conservation and management of biological diversity of the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction?”

This question has two dimensions. One requires a focus on the effectiveness of current implementation of the existing norms. The other requires a focus on the gaps within the existing norms and structures.

From the perspective of the Australian delegation, both dimensions are absolutely fundamental. Without effective implementation of existing norms, and a careful assessment of how to complement the current framework, our good intentions and best efforts will not translate into effective conservation and management of high seas biodiversity.

…

There are, of course, other areas that would benefit from increased attention. And we have heard of some of them over the last few days:

• marine scientific research

• marine debris and derelict fishing gear

• flag & port state responsibilities

Australia believes that we must now go beyond just identifying the problem and calling for urgent action. What we now need are firm proposals; a range of practical options for states to identify improvements to international oceans governance. Proposals that can then be considered, improved and adopted at the appropriate international forum.

What Australia is seeking from this meeting is a process that will result in such practical options being formulated, considered and adopted at the earliest reasonable time. As we indicated earlier in this meeting, Australia is attracted to the newly renamed “UN Oceans” network as the coordinating vehicle that might bring forward the options we are seeking. We are happy, however, to contemplate other suggestions.

…

Australia looks forward to working with others states to consider integrated solutions to these challenges.

On 26 November 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, issued a joint press release concerning deep ocean habitats. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government today announced it would take practical steps to reduce the risks from destructive fishing practices in sensitive marine environments.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said that Australia would support a United Nations move agreed to last week to protect areas of high biodiversity significance from destructive fishing practices where it was warranted in waters beyond national jurisdiction on the “high seas”.

Australia has also called for improved international governance on the high seas to protect the marine environment and to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Senator Campbell said that Australia had started talks with New Zealand to identify international waters in need of protection in the Tasman Sea and to find ways to control damaging fishing practices.

“Australia and New Zealand aim to set an example for the world in the protection of these highly productive areas that are abundant with marine life,” Senator Campbell said.

“The destruction of marine ecosystems and fisheries in places such as the North Atlantic are a lesson in mismanagement that we are determined to avoid in our part of the world.”

Fisheries Minister Senator Ian Macdonald said Australia would continue to fish and trawl responsibly in its surrounding oceans and to develop legitimate fisheries. He said that while Australian fishing operators used modern gear and low-impact trawl techniques on the high seas, they would continue to be required to use observers and to contribute to the scientific knowledge of the area.

…

“The most significant matter for Australia to pursue is how to improve high seas governance and biodiversity conservation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Senator Macdonald said. He said this advocacy would continue at the United Nations.

High Seas – Biodiversity – Bioprospecting

On 9 June 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting regarding the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

Another issue of relevance is bioprospecting. Although the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea contains a detailed regime on marine scientific research, including in areas beyond national jurisdiction, it is not clear that this addresses all issues relevant to bioprospecting. There is a potential “governance gap” in relation to bioprospecting on the high seas. This requires the urgent attention of the international community.

In Australia’s view, an effective approach to governance of bioprospecting must meet three objectives:

• It must ensure adequate protection of marine ecosystems from unsustainable collection for bioprospecting purposes;

• It must provide for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, with some of the benefits returned to the conservation of marine resources; and

• It must provide for a transparent and simple process to allow for vibrant biotechnology industries based on marine biodiversity.

High Seas – Biodiversity – Ecosystem-Based Management – Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

On 9 June 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting on the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia wants to see ecosystem-based management adopted as the fundamental tenet of oceans management generally, and fisheries management in particular. The UN Fish Stocks Agreements makes clear that fisheries management which focuses on a single species, or a single fishery, is no longer adequate. Rather, fisheries management must take into account the impacts and effects on and wellbeing of the entire ecosystem. Only then can we lay claim to true sustainability.

Australia recommends the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to the meeting as a model of a relatively effective biodiversity conservation regime which covers areas within and beyond national jurisdiction and has an explicit ecosystem-based management focus.

CCAMLR successfully integrates scientific research conducted by member states, with fisheries data to provide a sound, science-based precautionary basis for fish stock assessment, setting catch limits, including potential impacts on non-target species. CCAMLR’s procedures for managing new and exploratory fisheries in a precautionary manner set a useful example of conservation of marine biodiversity including in areas beyond national jurisdiction in situations of high scientific uncertainty, providing as it does a management approach that balances ecosystem protection and rational harvesting. It also contains detailed compliance measures.

As with other such arrangements, effective implementation, including through combating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, does remain a challenge. Nevertheless, it is an example worth considering.

High Seas – Biodiversity – Marine Protected Areas

On 9 June 2004, Mr Max Kitchell, Head of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea in New York, delivered a statement at the fifth meeting concerning the conservation and management of high seas biodiversity. An extract from the statement follows:

Let me indicate a number of areas where concerted attention and action by the international community is required to ensure effective conservation and management of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction:

The first is the establishment of marine protected areas, including on the high seas. This is not such a radical concept. The establishment of such areas is consistent with Articles 192 and 194 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Such action would also be in keeping with the WSSD Plan of Implementation, paragraph 32(c) of which called upon action at all levels to establish a globally representative network of marine protected areas by 2012. Given the unique characteristics of high seas biodiversity, a globally representative network of MPAs must necessarily include high seas areas. It is also consistent with the conclusions of States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at the Seventh Conference of Parties in February 2004. Decision VII/28 of the Conference of Parties tasked a new open-ended ad hoc working group to explore options for cooperation for the establishment of marine protected areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, consistent with international law and available scientific information. After a number of years discussing this at international fora, it is time to seriously examine the options for governance – this will allow us to take the next steps.

In this context, I am pleased to advise that the Australian and New Zealand governments have recently agreed to explore opportunities around our common marine boundary and in adjoining areas of the high seas for collaborative biodiversity conservation and management. We hope that such cooperative action could serve as a model to the international community of cooperative management of a discreet high seas area.

Honolulu Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly in relation to oceans and the law of the sea. An extract from the statement follows:

In Australia’s region, we welcome the entry into force of the Honolulu Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. It creates a mechanism for the sustainable exploitation of tuna, the one sizeable resource enjoyed by island States of the Pacific Islands Forum. The Commission created by the Convention is due to hold its inaugural meeting next month. It is particularly gratifying that two States with distant-water fishing interests in the Convention Area, China and the Republic of Korea, and one fishing entity with similar interests, Chinese Taipei, have now consented to be bound by the Convention.

The Convention is a breakthrough for another reason. Giving practical effect to the fine words we utter each year is vital. We talk a lot about the precautionary approach to fisheries in Annex II to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, but neglect Article 10(j), which obliges Parties to agree on decision-making procedures that facilitate the timely and effective adoption of conservation and management measures. Consensus or objection procedures too often drive older commissions to the lowest common denominator.

They adopt measures that are too little too late, or are completely paralysed.

The Honolulu Convention is a serious attempt at implementing Article 10(j), and avoiding paralysis. Instead of providing for an objection procedure, the Convention provides for a review procedure. The only grounds for review of measures adopted under the Convention are that they are inconsistent with UNCLOS, the Fish Stocks Agreement, or the Honolulu Convention itself; or that they discriminate in form or in fact against the State concerned.

Law of the Sea – Continental Shelf Submission

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea. An extract from the statement follows:

Yesterday, Australia lodged with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf its submission on the outer limit of the shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline.

Australia’s submission is the third on the Commission’s books. Australia is confident that the Commission will faithfully discharge its functions under Article 76. We look forward to working with the Commission in the coming months as it formulates recommendations on which our final and binding outer limit will be based.

We are confident that, in our case, those recommendations will emerge within a reasonable timeframe. However, we are concerned that, for reasons beyond the Commission’s control, this will not necessarily be so for States which come after us. While the Commission only has the space and human resources to deal actively with two submissions at a time, the achievement of certainty about the limits of the area beyond national jurisdiction, and thus the removal of a clog on the operation of the International Seabed Authority, is likely to be an increasingly remote prospect. For this reason Australia welcomes paragraph 31 of the omnibus resolution.

As required by paragraph 10, Australia’s submission is without prejudice to a number of existing and outstanding maritime boundary delimitations. Mr President, I am pleased to report that one of these outstanding delimitations was recently resolved.

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Mr Ian Macfarlane, released a joint media release in relation to Australia’s Continental Shelf Submission. An extract from the release follows:

Australia has lodged a submission with the United Nations to confirm the extent of its maritime jurisdiction over vast areas of continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state is entitled to areas of shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coastline where the shelf is part of the submerged landmass.

Lodgement of the submission was announced today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources.

Australia’s submission will be examined by an international body of experts – the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf – starting in early 2005. The Commission, established under UNCLOS, examines and makes recommendations on submissions by coastal States. The outer limit established on the basis of these recommendations is final and binding.

The Ministers said Australia had several areas of extended continental shelf totalling about 3.4 million square kilometres – an area equivalent to almost half of the Australian continental landmass and potentially the world’s largest such entitlement.

“It is in Australia’s interests to gain legal certainty on the outer limits of these areas, which give Australia exclusive rights to explore, exploit and conserve the natural resources of the relevant seabed areas,” the Ministers said.

These resources include mineral and other non-living seabed resources as well as some sedentary living organisms. Some of the areas also have environmental significance.

The submission is the culmination of 10 years’ work by Government departments and agencies involving the collection of large volumes of scientific data and a number of maritime surveys, many of them carried out in remote and potentially hazardous areas.

The submission describes the outer limit of the extended continental shelf by reference to the geological and geomorphological characteristics of the seabed adjacent to Australia and certain of its external territories, as well as other criteria set out in UNCLOS.^[1]

The terms of UNCLOS required Australia to make its submission by 16 November 2004 (the 10th anniversary of its entry into force for Australia).

Australia’s submission is the third on the Commission’s books, following submissions from the Russian Federation and Brazil.

Law of the Sea – Convention on the Law of the Sea

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning oceans and the law of the sea. An extract from the statement follows:

As we reflect today on what has happened in the law of the sea since the entry into force exactly ten years ago of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, who can fail to be surprised by how far we have come since 1994? Anxiety about whether the Convention would ever gain wide participation has been replaced by a sense of security in the status it has achieved as the foundation of States’ cooperation in their use of the oceans.

But the comprehensive instrument we have today was not always planned to have that character. The process by which it came about was sparked 37 years ago by Ambassador Pardo’s address proposing that the deep ocean floor should be the common heritage of mankind. This concept quickly won universal acceptance, but carried with it the need to define the boundary between the deep ocean floor and the continental shelf under national jurisdiction.

Article 76 of the Convention, which sets out the rules for establishing that boundary, is in a sense the seed from which the whole Convention grew. It was quickly realised that one facet of the law of the sea had implications for all the other facets.

As the preamble to the Convention and the resolutions before us put it, the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole. That remains true, and is something we should all bear in mind with the Convention being open for amendment as from today. However, few of the piecemeal improvements to the Convention that many of us, including Australia, would be happy to see would not be equally attainable in effect by continuing to refine the way we interpret and apply the Convention.

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Symposium ‘Strategic Directions for Australia and the Law of the Sea’ entitled ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Ten Years of benefits for Australia’. An extract from the speech follows:

Ten years ago to the day, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) entered into force. This was a unique achievement of international diplomacy and international law at the time.

Today, with the hindsight of ten years, we can see just how important that achievement was.

The process that gave birth to the Convention goes back to 1967 to the 22nd session of the United Nations General Assembly when Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta first articulated a concept that later won universal acceptance; namely, that the deep ocean floor should belong to the common heritage of humankind.

This concept created the need to define what the deep ocean floor was, how it should be measured and beyond that, how to define the limits of the other maritime zones adjacent to the coastal State.

The formal negotiation process lasted from 1973 to 1982.

It is no hyperbole to say that this was the longest, the largest and clearly one of the most important negotiating efforts ever undertaken successfully by the global community.

Australia deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention on 5 October 1994, thereby becoming an original Party.

…

Australia’s overriding objective during the law of the sea negotiations was the adoption of a widely accepted and comprehensive Convention which met Australia’s substantive interests. The results exceeded this objective.

The Convention provides a comprehensive set of legal principles governing human activities at sea. It covers such diverse issues as maritime zones, fisheries conservation and management, piracy, transit through international straits, protection and conservation of the marine environment and mining of the deep seabed. Moreover, it is almost universally accepted as reflecting in many parts of customary international law.

…

While the Convention provides a wide-ranging regime on the uses of the oceans, it is not intended to be the final word on these issues. Rather, it acts as an umbrella or framework agreement encouraging States to develop more detailed rules on specific issues in international bodies such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, a number of United Nations agencies and important new measures and agreements to help manage fish stocks.

The Convention’s innovative and comprehensive dispute settlement regime has also meant that, when differences arise, we have a common language and discourse in seeking to resolve them peacefully.

And, notwithstanding the specific amendment procedure inscribed in the Convention, the truth is that development of the international law of the sea has always been a work in progress.

One thing is certain – the international law of the sea, like all other branches of international law, cannot stand still and it must develop to meet the challenges of the modern era and be updated in the light of developments in technology.

The furthering of legal concepts and principles through the development of international custom, and the conclusion of bilateral, regional and other international agreements, all provide impetus for the clarification and expansion of legal concepts which may one day form part of the Convention itself.

For example, provisions of the Convention concerning enforcement on the high seas, including hot pursuit – which I mentioned earlier – should be applied in their modern context, allowing satellite-based and other remote sensing technologies to enable both identification and pursuit of illegal vessels.

Unless this is done, illegal fishing interests will continue to evade capture – proper conservation and management, the rule of law and the principle of national sovereignty all risk being undermined.

Another question is whether provisions concerning boarding should extend beyond ships falling within the classical definition of ‘piracy’, to those that are carrying drugs or weapons of mass destruction.

These types of questions are in no way abstract, arcane musings. They concern very real situations which are already upon us and which we must be able to deal with today.

The boarding of vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction is a key concern for those countries – Australia included – that participate in the Proliferation and Security Initiative (PSI).

Law of the Sea – Convention on the Law of the Sea – Resolutions 49(a) and (b)

On 16 November 2004, Senator John Tierney, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly regarding oceans and the Law of the Sea. An extract from the statement follows:

The recommendations of the fifth meeting of the UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea are the source of much of the new language in the resolutions before us. This attests once more to the value of this process.

As usual, Australia will co-sponsor and vote in favour of both resolutions. We express our thanks to the co-ordinators and the Secretariat, whose jobs seem to get harder every year in line with the resolutions’ ever increasing length. It is time we lightened their burden. There are plenty of topical problems in the law of the sea in general, and fisheries in particular, that are worthy of our close attention, but their prominence is only obscured by our collective insistence on repeating the same things year after year, as though General Assembly Resolution expired after a year. Is it too much to hope, Mr President, that the two resolutions’ combined total this year of 45 preambular and 187 operative paragraphs both represent high-water marks?

Maritime Boundaries – Timor-Leste

On 12 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice in relation to maritime boundary negotiations with East Timor. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Yesterday Jose Ramos Horta, my counterpart from East Timor, was here and we followed up a meeting that we had in Jakarta at the end of June with further talks about the Timor Sea negotiations. To put this into some perspective, at the time of East Timor’s independence—to which this government contributed mightily—we negotiated the Timor Sea Treaty arrangements for the Joint Petroleum Development Area, which provided East Timor with 90 per cent of the revenue from the Joint Petroleum Development Area. That obviously has been of substantial benefit. Secondly, we negotiated an international unitisation agreement in relation to Greater Sunrise, and we signed off on that during last year. The third phase of this process is the phase that we are in now.

During our discussions yesterday, building on the discussions at the end of June, Jose Ramos Horta and I agreed on a framework for concluding these negotiations. Whilst we both agreed that we would not conduct the negotiations in public and go through the details in public, I can say that the important thing to understand about the framework is that from Australia’s point of view as a wealthy country the integrity of our legal system and our boundaries is a very important issue. Of course, it is an important issue for every country, including East Timor. For East Timor the really important issue above all is for a new, fledgling country to have secure sources of revenue. Both Jose Ramos Horta and I agree that from here on it is not going to be too difficult to reconcile the interests of our respective countries.

I very much hope, as does the East Timor foreign minister, that we can conclude these negotiations by the end of the year. If we can then it is obviously going to be very good for East Timor, but it is also going to be very good for Darwin.

On 24 August 2004, H E Mr John Dauth LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council on Australia – Timor-Leste maritime boundary negotiations. Extracts from the statement follow:

No country is more aware than mine of the significance of the current maritime boundary negotiations between Australia and Timor Leste. Australia’s Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, met Dr Ramos-Horta on 11 August to discuss the maritime boundary issue. These discussions made significant progress and Australia and East Timor are now much closer to an agreement on a framework for a settlement on permanent maritime boundaries. Both our countries are pursuing a creative approach that preserves the fundamental interests of both Australia and Timor Leste. For our part, Australia believes in the strength of its legal position, and sovereignty is also a key issue. We look forward to working with Timor Leste to resolve outstanding issues as soon as possible. The next round of negotiations is likely to be in September.

Maritime Boundaries – Maritime Boundary Arbitration Mechanisms

On 10 February 2004, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill, answered a question on notice regarding maritime zones.

(1) Why has the Australian Government withdrawn from the compulsory maritime boundary arbitration mechanisms of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice.
(2) Does the Government consider this is a fair course of action given that this withdrawal has effectively prevented East Timor seeking independent resolution under international law of the disputed maritime boundary between Australia and East Timor.

Extracts from Mr Hill’s response follow:

Answer
(1) Australia’s maritime zones abut the maritime zones of Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, France (New Caledonia, Kerguelen Island and Antarctica), East Timor and Norway. In the Government’s view, maritime boundaries are best settled by negotiation and not by reference to an international court or tribunal.
(2) The exclusion of disputes concerning maritime boundaries from Australia’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is consistent with the Government’s position regarding the settlement of maritime boundaries with other countries.

Maritime Boundaries – Maritime Identification Zone

On 15 December 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, issued a press release concerning offshore maritime security. An extract of the release follows:

Based on cooperative international arrangements, including with neighbouring countries, the Australian Government also intends to establish a Maritime Identification Zone. This will extend up to 1,000 nautical miles from Australia’s coastline. On entering this Zone vessels proposing to enter Australian ports will be required to provide comprehensive information such as ship identity, crew, cargo, location, course, speed and intended port of arrival. Within Australia’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, the aim will be to identify all vessels, other than day recreational boats. The collection and coordination of this maritime information will improve the effectiveness of civil and military maritime surveillance in support of key tasks such as border and fisheries protection, as well as counter-terrorism response and interdiction. The Zone will be managed by the Joint Offshore Protection Command at an additional cost of $4m over four years. The protection of Australia’s oil and gas facilities is a key focus of the Australian Government’s priorities to enhance offshore maritime security.^[2]

Maritime Boundaries – Negotiations

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a speech to the Symposium ‘Strategic Directions for Australia and the Law of the Sea’ entitled ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Ten Years of benefits for Australia’. An extract from the speech follows:

During the past year Australia has also been negotiating, in good faith and under difficult circumstances, to delimit maritime boundaries with East Timor. This, along with small areas of extended continental shelf between Norfolk Island and New Caledonia and between Heard and Kerguelen Islands, as well as those marine areas adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory, are the final frontiers for Australian maritime delimitation.

Australia will continue to work hard, in the spirit of the Convention, to achieve fair and equitable results in these areas as well.

Maritime Boundaries – Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic on Cooperation in the Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), Heard Island and the McDonald Islands

On 12 May 2004, the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic on Cooperation in the Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, done at Canberra on 24 November 2003, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The Treaty is intended to create a framework for cooperation between Australia and France to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activity within the Australian and French waters covered by the Treaty.

The Treaty provides for unilateral and cooperative surveillance operations by Australia and France within the area covered by the Treaty of vessels that appear to be in breach of either national or international fisheries law. The area covered by the Treaty and referred to in the text of the Treaty as the “Area of Cooperation” is the territorial seas and the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) surrounding the Australian territory of Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, and those of the French territories of Kerguelen Islands, Crozet Islands, Saint-Paul Island and Amsterdam Island.

The Treaty requires, subject to its terms, that France and Australia exchange information on the location, movements and licensing of fishing vessels within the area covered by the Treaty. In addition to information exchange on legal fishing vessel operations, the Treaty provides the basis for sharing information and intelligence on illegal fishing vessel activity that could be used to cue surveillance or response vessels. It also allows for logistical support for a country’s `hot pursuit’ of a vessel travelling through the other’s waters to be requested by the pursuing country. The Treaty also provides for cooperative scientific research on marine living resources, and provides for Australia and France to make further agreements for the undertaking of cooperative surveillance and enforcement missions.

It is an appropriate time to take binding treaty action as IUU fishing activity within the Area of Cooperation continues to be a serious threat to the maritime environment and the sustainability of valuable fish stocks that are currently legitimately harvested by Australian fishing operators.

Maritime Boundaries – Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand establishing Certain Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Boundaries

On 25 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, and the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock, issued a joint press release on the agreement between Australia and New Zealand on maritime boundaries. An extract from the release follows:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and his New Zealand counterpart, the Hon Phil Goff, today signed a treaty delimiting the maritime boundaries between Australia and New Zealand.

The Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand establishing Certain Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Boundaries marks the end of four years of negotiations and will settle boundaries in the largest outstanding undelimited ocean area adjacent to Australia in the Tasman Sea and the south-western Pacific and Southern Oceans.

The Treaty will provide certainty of jurisdiction over both the water column and seabed, including over fisheries and petroleum resources, as well as in relation to protecting and preserving the marine environment and undertaking marine scientific research.

The Treaty will benefit our fisheries and extractive industries, and will greatly reduce the potential for future disputes between us. It will also ensure New Zealand’s support for Australia’s submission later this year of data on the outer limits of its continental shelf to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

On 4 August 2004, the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand establishing Certain Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Boundaries, done at Adelaide on 25 July 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The proposed Treaty will settle the maritime boundaries between Australia and New Zealand in the Tasman Sea and adjacent areas of the south-western Pacific Ocean. There are currently no boundaries agreed between Australia and New Zealand. The establishment of such boundaries will provide Australia with security of jurisdiction over the relevant offshore resources west of those boundaries. The boundaries in the Treaty represent an equitable and fair outcome for Australia.

The Treaty will benefit Australia’s resources industries. For petroleum, finalisation of the continental shelf boundaries will create certainty and in the long term allow the release of new areas for exploration should the industry express interest in this. For fisheries, finalisation of the maritime boundaries will make easier the joint management with New Zealand of any stocks shown to occur in the vicinity of the boundaries, over which jurisdiction would otherwise have been uncertain.

The settling of the maritime boundary between Australia and New Zealand greatly reduces the potential for future disputes and serves as a model of bilateral cooperation in the region. In the short term, it also ensures that New Zealand will support Australia’s submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) on the outer limit of its continental shelf when it is lodged in November 2004. Sections of the boundary settled by the Treaty would form part of the outer limit submitted to the CLCS by Australia.

V. International Economic Law

Agreement between Australia and New Zealand for the Establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products

On 30 March 2004, the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand for the Establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products, done at Wellington on 10 December 2003, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The principal objective of the Agreement is to safeguard public health and safety by establishing and maintaining a joint scheme between Australia and New Zealand, consistent with international best practice, for the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy or performance of therapeutic products, and of their manufacture, supply, import, export or promotion (Article 2). Therapeutic products include medical devices, prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary medicines.

The Agreement provides that this scheme (“the joint Scheme”) will be administered in both countries by a single regulatory Agency to be established under Australian legislation (the “Agency”), and that the joint Scheme and the Agency will be overseen by a Ministerial Council comprising the Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers. The Agency will replace the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority.

The Agreement gives effect to the intention of the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (“TTMRA”) that Australia and New Zealand will work together to resolve the various special exemptions that operate under the Arrangement, including the special exemption for therapeutic products. The Agreement is in the national interest because it will continue the development of a more integrated trans-Tasman economy, an aim of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (“CER”), whilst delivering public health benefits for Australia by providing Australia with an enhanced and sustainable regulatory capacity for therapeutic products.

Agreement between Australia and the European Community on Trade in Wine

On 3 May 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the First International Wine Tourism Conference concerning the European Union. An extract from the speech follows:

While we are working to create opportunities in new and existing markets, we have not lost sight of the fact that the European Union, as a whole, remains our most important export destination for wine – as I said earlier, taking over 50 per cent of total exports.

Ongoing and fair market access to the EU is, therefore, a high priority for the Australian Government.

The EU’s continued use of prescriptive regulatory arrangements for all types of grape and wine production and wine marketing is of great concern.

The recently passed — and well publicised — EC Wine labelling regulation is probably the best example of the European approach.

The Australian Government is working closely with Australian industry representatives and other like-minded countries to ensure this regulation does not adversely affect our ability to put wine into the EU.

Interestingly, the introduction of this regulation had been delayed twice following not only internal criticism but also lobbying by Australia and other countries in the Committees of the World Trade Organisation.

Another relevant area of concern is the 1994 EU-Australia Wine Agreement.

This agreement enabled Australian wine producers to use a range of oenological practices prohibited in Europe, streamlined export certification arrangements for our wine and provided for the reciprocal protection of Australian and European geographical indications.

As such, the Agreement has supported Australia’s massive export growth into the EU over the past decade.

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Wine Industry Outlook Conference entitled ‘Emerging Markets, New Visions’. An extract from the speech follows:

While we are working to create opportunities in new and existing markets, we have not lost sight of the fact that the European Union remains our most important export destination for wine.

Many of you will be familiar with the 1994 EU-Australia Wine Agreement and the contribution this has made in facilitating the development of the European market for Australian wine producers.

The Agreement did, however, leave a number of issues outstanding, such as setting final phase-out dates for several well-known EU geographical indications – including champagne, port and sherry – as well as finalising the arrangements to apply to the use of several so-called EU traditional expressions.

We have been negotiating for some time to address these issues and to update the Agreement to reflect developments over the last 10 years as well as address issues such as oenological practices and other labelling matters.

There have been a number of meetings this year to move the negotiations forward – including last week in Canberra – and good progress has been made towards concluding a new Agreement.

I am hopeful that we will be able to finalise negotiations quickly.

Agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices

On 22 June 2004, the Agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices, done at Toronto on 19 December 2001, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The purpose of the MAA is to facilitate trade in wine among countries that are parties to the Mutual Acceptance Agreement on Oenological Practices. The main objective of the World Wine Trade Group (WWTG), which developed the MAA, is to explore options for facilitating the trade in wine and to minimise potential barriers to such trade.

Under the provisions of the MAA each member country will, subject to health and safety considerations, accept wine imported from another member country, regardless of whether it meets all the domestic wine production requirements of the importing country. This recognises that oenological practices may vary from country to country for a variety of climatic and other reasons. Overall, the MAA provides a more liberal approach to arrangements governing oenological practices because it limits the basis of an importing country’s objections to any wine imports to health and safety grounds only.

In 2002-03 Australia exported nearly $2.4 billion worth of wine, which represents 56% of total wine sales. Exports to the USA and Canada, who have already ratified the MAA, were worth over $1 billion in 2002-03. This MAA is an important development as it will provide a more secure trading environment for Australian wine exporters in these key markets.

Specific advantages to the Australian wine industry include:

• the provision of greater security of access to overseas wine markets by reducing one important area of potential future dispute;

• encouraging the development and adoption of new wine technologies; and

• providing an alternative model to the more prescriptive regulatory model adopted by the European Union countries, which requires individual assessments of new practices that go beyond health and safety considerations.

Apia Declaration of Principles on Regional Transport Services

On 7 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, issued a press release on transport reform in the Pacific. An extract from the release follows:

I am delighted to announce Australia will establish a $2 million fund to assist transport reform in the Pacific.

Leaders at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum have supported a number of Australian recommendations drawn from the Pacific Regional Transport Study, which I initiated at last year’s Forum. In particular, they have endorsed the Apia Declaration of Principles on Regional Transport Services.

In their current state, many regional transport services are economically unsustainable and place an excessive burden on the economies of Forum island countries.

The recommendations propose practical measures to improve the economic efficiency and sustainability of the region’s aviation and shipping sectors, including through the pooling of scarce regional resources.

The fund will give Forum island countries access to specialist economic, financial and legal expertise to help them make key policy decisions in the transport sector.

The maintenance of regular, reliable and competitive transport services is crucial to the economies of Forum island countries. Recent changes in the transport sector, including the entry of low-cost competitors and new international safety and security requirements, will have significant implications for Pacific services.

Good governance, including sound processes for appointing boards, disclosure of financial statements, awarding of contracts and infrastructure decisions, will be essential to meet these challenges successfully.

Australia will continue to work closely with Forum island countries and the Forum secretariat on this important issue.

Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation – Termination – Slovak Republic

On 4 August 2004, the Termination of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Slovak Republic on Trade and Economic Cooperation, done at Canberra on 23 April 1999, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The Slovak Republic notified the Government of Australiaon 8 December 2003, via diplomatic note, that it requests the termination of the Agreement; as the five years provided for in Article 10(2) has not expired, the Agreement can not be terminated without Australia’s consent. The Slovak Republic requested the termination of the Agreement in furtherance to its accession to the European Union (EU) on 1 May 2004, which required the termination of such bilateral trade agreements.

Termination of the Agreement is not expected to change the level of bilateral trade with the Slovak Republic in any significant way. Following its EU accession on 1 May 2004, the Slovak Republic has been required to comply with EU economic, institutional and regulatory frameworks. This harmonisation with EU frameworks undercuts the primary purpose of the Agreement.

In the May 2004 Government response to the 2003 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia’s trade and investment relations with Central European countries, including the Slovak Republic, it was recognised that it would be necessary to agree to requests to terminate existing trade agreements in the knowledge that many of the issues previously covered will operate at the Australia-European Union level. This position meets the national interest of Australia in the case of its relations with the Slovak Republic.

Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation – Vietnam – Most Favoured Nation Status

On 9 December 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release regarding Australian exports to Vietnam. Extracts from the release follow:

Australian agricultural producers and manufacturers stand to gain significantly following Vietnam’s agreement to extend Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment to Australia from tomorrow, 10 December 2004, Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced today.

“Australian exporters of grapes, apples, pears, fruit juices, cheeses and curds, a range of fresh vegetables and oils, cereal flours and meat products stand to benefit from significant tariff reductions,” Mr Vaile said.

“Exporters of manufactured goods as diverse as manicure and pedicure products, parts for footwear, aerials, filters, and certain types of photographic equipment and paper will also be big winners from this announcement.

“The Government of Vietnam’s decision to implement MFN on import tariffs is a welcome development for Australia. It accords with Australia’s 1990 Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam, and follows active representations in Canberra and Hanoi during the past three years.

“It will enhance Australia’s prospects for an increased share of Vietnam’s growing market for imported agricultural and manufactured goods and represents a further step in the full integration of Vietnam’s economy with the international trading system.

…

Bilateral trade in goods between Australia and Vietnam is currently worth about $2.5 billion per year. Australia’s major exports to Vietnam are aluminium, copper, cereal preparations and plastic sheeting and films.

Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Trade and Economic Framework – Japan

On 19 February 2004, the Minster for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech at the public launch of Australia’s participation at the Aichi World Expo 2005 concerning Australia’s relationship with Japan. Extracts from the speech follow:

In contrast to our overall trade relations, for example, the Australia-Japan investment relationship is an area with room for considerable expansion. And while our export performance in resources remains strong, we are not doing as well as we would like in services trade – beyond tourism and education – or in trade in products from newer industries.

But we are firmly committed to further developing our trade and investment ties with Japan through the Australia-Japan Trade and Economic Framework, signed last July in Tokyo by Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Koizumi.

The Framework charts a new course for the future development of our trade, investment and economic ties with Japan.

…

It includes a trade and investment facilitation package aimed at making it easier to do business, through improved commercial and regulatory linkages. In particular, it includes an Investment Memorandum of Understanding to provide for cooperative investment promotion activities.

The package covers well-established sectors, such as food and energy trade; emerging growth areas such as Information and Communication Technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology, and newer policy issues including competition policy and securities market regulation.

Good progress is being made across the eleven initiatives identified in the Framework.

On 13 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, delivered a speech to the AsiaLink – ANU National Forum entitled ‘Australia’s Engagement with Asia: A New Paradigm’. An extract from the speech follows:

The Trade and Economic Framework, signed during my visit to Japan in July 2003, commits both countries to work towards comprehensive bilateral trade and investment liberalisation. A Joint Study to advance this objective is underway.

Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Trade and Investment Framework – Egypt

On 16 May 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release regarding the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Egypt. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced today that Australia will negotiate a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Egypt.

“With Australia’s exports totalling about $370 million last year, there is room for significant growth,” Mr Vaile said.

Mr Vaile met with his counterpart, the Egyptian Foreign Trade Minister Dr Youssef Boutros-Ghali, in the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris last week.

“While our current bilateral trade is substantial, both Governments agree there is scope for improvement. With this in mind, Dr Boutros-Ghali and I agreed today to negotiate a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement,” he said.

Mr Vaile explained that the agreement would look, among other things, at issues of cooperation and facilitation including in areas such as customs, quarantine and competition policy. It could also lead to an increase in two-way investment between Australia and Egypt, particularly in agriculture.

“Both Governments agreed to investigate impediments to economic cooperation that could be addressed through a TIFA. For example, Australia will be hoping to discuss technical standards applied by Egypt to meat imports, with a view to removing or reducing unnecessary barriers.”

Mr Vaile said there was also scope for more cooperation on sanitary and phytosanitary standards and practices, from which both countries could benefit.

“Once finalised, the agreement could help to open new opportunities for Australian exporters,” Mr Vaile said.

Bilateral Economic Cooperation – Agreement on Bilateral Cooperation – Thailand

On 4 August 2004, the Agreement on Bilateral Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, done at Canberra on 5 July 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The Agreement is designed to stand alongside the proposed Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) and, whilst placing no new specific obligations on Australia, would enhance cooperation and consultation across political, social, security and economic sectors not covered by the TAFTA.

The areas of bilateral cooperation covered in the proposed Agreement include security and law enforcement, economic, investment and technical areas not covered by the TAFTA, environment and heritage, natural resource management in agriculture, science and technology and energy, information technology and telecommunications, civil aviation, public administration and public sector reform, immigration, education, culture, social development and tourism.

The Agreement would allow Australia and Thailand to identify new initiatives and potential areas of mutual interest, in addition to furthering information exchange and intensifying existing dialogue. It would establish regular Ministerial level consultations between the Parties. A Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation would be established to review progress of areas of cooperation and make further recommendations. In doing so, it would take account of the outcomes of annual Thailand-Australia Senior Officials’ Talks.

Free Trade Agreements – APEC

On 19 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release on the APEC Best-Practice FTA Principles. Extracts from the release follow:

Agreement by APEC ministers today on a set of best-practice principles for free trade agreements was an important step forward for APEC economies, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said.

Speaking from the APEC Joint Ministerial Meeting in Santiago, Chile, Mr Vaile said free trade agreements had become major trade policy objectives for most APEC members.

…

“As the spread of FTAs in the Asia-Pacific continues, we must ensure these agreements are fully consistent with World Trade Organisation rules and APEC principles so they can deliver enhanced benefits to FTA partners and to the trading community more widely.

“While the best-practice principles are non-binding, their strength lies in the moral force they have from the backing of economies accounting for 60 per cent of world trade.”

Among the characteristics of the best-practice FTAs are comprehensiveness, going beyond WTO commitments, transparency, simple rules of origin and openness to accession by third parties.

Free Trade Agreements – ASEAN/Australia/New Zealand Free Trade Area

On 29 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice regarding the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand summit. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

This summit is a key recognition not only of the importance of ASEAN to Australia but of the importance of Australia to ASEAN. We are optimistic that a key outcome of the summit will be the beginning of negotiations towards establishing something that I think is extremely desirable—that is, an ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade area or free trade agreement. That would build, of course, on the strong commercial links that already exist between Australia and the ASEAN countries, on the free trade agreements we have negotiated with Thailand and Singapore and on the work we are doing with Malaysia.

On 1 December 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release in relation to the ASEAN-ANZ Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Extracts from the release follow:

The launch of negotiations on an ASEAN-Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was a historic development in Australia’s engagement with South East Asia, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said today.

Leaders from ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand agreed to launch FTA negotiations during their Summit in Vientiane, Laos today. Negotiations would begin in early 2005 and be concluded in two years.

…

“I am particularly pleased that leaders endorsed a set of negotiating principles which my ministerial colleagues and I agreed upon during our annual consultations in Jakarta on 5 September. These principles include a commitment to a comprehensive agreement covering both goods and services and the progressive elimination of all forms of barriers to trade.

On 1 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question without notice concerning the outcomes of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand summit. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

The summit was more than just symbolic: it was a practical expression of the very deep relations Australia enjoys bilaterally, regionally and collectively with the countries of South-East Asia. A key achievement was the launch of the negotiations to establish an ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement.

Free Trade Agreements – China

On 16 January 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release regarding the Australia-China Joint Study on the possible FTA. An extract from the release follows:

Implementation of the Australia-China Trade and Economic Framework including a joint feasibility study on a possible free trade agreement (FTA) are off to a good start, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said today.

Australian and Chinese senior officials met in Sydney today to officially begin the process of advancing the Framework.

“Good progress has been made on the implementation of the Framework which I and Chinese Vice Minister Yu signed last October,” Mr Vaile said.

“Like our Free Trade Agreements with Thailand and Singapore, the joint FTA study is a measure of the Government’s continued success in advancing an ambitious new agenda of trade and economic linkages with Asia.

“This first Senior Officials’ Meeting discussed progress made to date on the joint FTA study and set in train processes for its completion before October 2005.”

Senior officials also discussed possible arrangements for a meeting this year of the Australia-China Joint Ministerial Economic Commission (JMEC) and areas within the Framework for further cooperation in trade facilitation.

“JMEC is the key institution for advancing our economic and trade interests with China and provides a valuable opportunity for ministers responsible for trade to address issues to further strengthen the relationship. We want to re-invigorate and strengthen JMEC,” Mr Vaile said.

The Framework was signed by Mr Vaile and China’s Vice Minister of Commerce, Mr Yu Guangzhou in the presence of Prime Minister John Howard and China’s President Hu Jintao on 24 October 2003.

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Australian Services Roundtable concerning future FTA possibilities. An extract from the speech follows:

Of great interest to many of you in the room is the joint FTA feasibility study we are currently undertaking with China. This feasibility study is progressing well and we expect it to be finalised in March next year. Both Governments are expected to take a decision on whether to negotiate an FTA shortly thereafter.

The services sector forms an important part of the joint study. China represents a significant business opportunity for Australia in the services area. Services trade is expanding rapidly and will be an increasingly important element of the commercial relationship in the future.

One example of a services sector where mutual benefits from an FTA might be possible is education-related services – where China

is already our number one source of foreign students. A possible FTA with China could seek to address issues in areas such as investment, cross-border supply, commercial presence and the movement of educational professionals.

Another example is legal services, where greater liberalisation of the Chinese legal services sector would increase the opportunities for the sharing of professional skills and knowledge between Australian and Chinese lawyers and law firms. This should also contribute to the creation of a wider range of, and more competitive, legal services in both countries.

Other areas where mutual benefits from an FTA might be possible include telecommunications, professional services, financial services, tourism, freight logistics, distribution services and energy services.

Free Trade Agreements – New Zealand – Closer Economic Relations Agreement

On 10 December 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning the Australia-New Zealand bilateral trade and economic relationship. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile will lead Australia’s delegation to annual ministerial talks in Queenstown, New Zealand, from 10 to 11 December.

Mr Vaile will hold discussions with his New Zealand counterpart, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Jim Sutton. Mr Vaile will be accompanied by the Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Ian Macfarlane.

Ministers will review developments in the bilateral trade and economic relationship, including the two Governments’ Single Economic Market (SEM) initiative.

“While the CER Agreement, signed in 1983, is undoubtedly still the world’s best example of a comprehensive free trade agreement, we are not sitting on our hands,” Mr Vaile said.

…

“The CER has been an outstanding success and continues to deliver substantial business and trade gains to both countries. New Zealand is Australia’s fifth-largest market, taking 7.4 per cent of our exports, and is our seventh-largest source of imports. Australia is New Zealand’s principal trading partner, taking 22 per cent of its exports and providing 22 per cent of its imports. In 2003/04 trans-Tasman trade amounted to $17.3 billion (including $4.2 billion in services).”

Delegations from the Australian and New Zealand

chapters of the Australia New Zealand Business Council (ANZBC) will also attend the meeting. Business and the ANZBC welcomed the sectoral focus first introduced at the 2002 Trade Ministers’ Meeting. This year the focus will be on wood and paper products.

Free Trade Agreements – Singapore

On 20 April 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release welcoming the UNSW plan to establish a campus in Singapore. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed the announcement by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) that it would establish a campus in Singapore to provide undergraduate and post-graduate teaching and research.

“UNSW will be the first foreign university to offer full campus facilities in Singapore,” Mr Vaile said.

“This momentous development will help broaden our bilateral economic and people-to-people links with Singapore and underlines the existing strong education links between our two countries.

“UNSW’s decision also highlights the growing export opportunities for Australian providers of education services in Singapore.”

Under the Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) which entered into force last July, Australian education providers can operate relatively freely in Singapore. Singapore government scholarships for overseas use are also tenable at Australian universities.

Singapore is Australia’s fourth largest market for overseas students, and more than 31,000 Singapore students enrolled in both onshore and offshore Australian institutions in 2003.

On 14 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech at the launch of the First Ministerial Review of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. entitled ‘Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement – One Year On’. Extracts from the speech follow:

Without doubt SAFTA is already a success – facilitating trade and investment between our two countries.

…

SAFTA provides for improved conditions of access for Australian goods and services in a wide range of sectors, for example:

• SAFTA eliminates remaining Singapore tariffs

• it guarantees liberal conditions of access for many service suppliers, including in the legal, financial and education sectors

• it provides a more open and predictable business environment across a range of areas including telecommunications regulation, competition policy, government procurement, technical standards, intellectual property, e-commerce, customs procedures and business travel.

During the first twelve months of SAFTA, benefits from the agreement have already become evident:

• business from both countries has noticed improved conditions of access provided by the agreement

• Australian business has enjoyed a more open and predictable environment across a range of sectors in Singapore

• since SAFTA entered into force, Austrade has helped over 160 companies – many of them new exporters – enter the Singapore market with deals worth over $120 million

• this is only a start, and the full extent of the stimulus that SAFTA will provide to bilateral commerce will only be evident over the longer-term.

…

Under SAFTA, both countries agreed to review the implementation and outcomes of the agreement after 12 months, and then at two year intervals, to ensure the agreement’s ongoing relevance for business.

Prior to this first review we have been encouraging feedback from business on the agreement

• this has been positive, but of course there are areas where enhancements are possible

• and we have been examining what adjustments can be made to the agreement to promote improved trade and investment opportunities.

Minister Yeo and I agreed today to launch the first review of SAFTA. As part of this review process, we have agreed on the following which provide the potential for even greater benefits to our respective economies:

• completion of two annexes to the agreement on Horticulture Goods and Food Standards – these will facilitate Singapore’s exports of orchids and foliage to Australia while the food annex will provide procedures for the mutual recognition of the other party’s standards and compliance procedures.

• Singapore has agreed to recognise law degrees from additional universities, initially from the University of Tasmania and the Murdoch University. Australiawill add four entities to the list of agencies covered under the Government procurement chapter of the agreement.

• We have agreed to commence work on the modification of Australia’s reservation lists on services and investment to extend their coverage to the States and Territories, and the incorporation into SAFTA of improved conditions for legal joint ventures and the lifting of the quota on wholesale banking licences in Singapore.

• We have also endorsed a forward work program to maintain the pace of integration between the Australian and Singaporean economies through ongoing cooperation in the areas of:

• e-commerce and telecommunications;

• regulatory reforms covering competition, education, industry and other government policies;

• improvements to the rules in SAFTA, particularly in the investment chapter and on rules of origin;

• commitments under the government procurement chapter; and

• ways to promote even closer business links through SAFTA.

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Australian Services Roundtable on regional and bilateral agreements. An extract from the speech follows:

The Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement –or SAFTA as we call it – achieved a number of important outcomes for the services sector. SAFTA commits Singapore to accord Australian service suppliers the same treatment as Singapore businesses – with few exceptions. SAFTA also goes beyond the GATS on market access and national treatment, particularly for Australian exporters of financial, legal and education services. Restrictions on wholesale banking licences and joint law ventures have been eased. And residency requirements for Australian professionals such as architects, engineers, accountants and auditors have also been eased or removed.

Free Trade Agreements – Thailand

On 12 May 2004, the Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement, done at Canberra on 5 July 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The Australia-Thailand FTA liberalises and facilitates trade and investment between the Parties. The FTA will deliver new trade and investment opportunities and an improved climate for commercial exchanges.

The most significant feature of the FTA is that it will remove all of Thailand’s tariff and quota barriers on imports of merchandise from Australia that meet the Rules of Origin (ROOs) criteria. It also includes initiatives to free up and facilitate trade in services and two-way investment.

In addition to the core trade liberalisation commitments on goods and services, the FTA also contains provisions on the protection of intellectual property, customs procedures, electronic commerce, competition policy and government procurement.

Thailand was Australia’s fourteenth largest export destination in 2003, with two-way trade valued at $A 5.9 billion. Thailand is already an important and expanding market for Australian exports of goods and services, but economic linkages have been hampered by Thailand’s high trade restrictions and barriers.

On top of the increased trade and investment opportunities the FTA provides, the initiative to negotiate the FTA also reflected Australia’s broader trade and economic interests in the Asian region. The conclusion of a substantive and comprehensive FTA with Thailand will signal strong support for multilateral, regional and bilateral initiatives, help create an open global and regional trading environment and promote strength and stability in the region. The deal establishes a platform for Australia to work towards greater economic integration with the second-largest economy in South East Asia.

On 15 June 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, issued a press release concerning Australia-Thailand cooperation. An extract from the release follows:

I am pleased to announce that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand accompanied by eight members of his Cabinet will visit Australia from Sunday 4 July to Tuesday 6 July 2004.

Dr Thaksin and I will witness the signing of the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Thailand-Australia Agreement on Bilateral Cooperation and will chair a wider meeting of Australian and Thai Ministers in Canberra on Monday 5 July 2004.

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release welcoming the Thailand-Australian Free Trade Agreement. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) as a landmark in trade relations between Australia and Thailand.

In a ceremony at Parliament House, Mr Vaile and his Thai counterpart, Commerce Minister Watana Muangsook signed the Agreement witnessed by Prime Minister John Howard and Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

“TAFTA positions Australia at a new and exciting phase of its economic partnership with Southeast Asia’s fastest growing economy,” Mr Vaile said.

“When TAFTA comes into force in January 2005, more than $700 million of current Australian exports to Thailand will benefit immediately from tariff cuts, while the savings on Thai customs duties are expected to be around $100 million in the first year alone.

“By 2010, 95 per cent of all current trade between Australia and Thailand will be completely free.

“Many Australian companies formerly locked out of the Thai market by high tariffs and quotas will enjoy new opportunities, particularly in areas such as agriculture, processed foods and beverages, mining and automotive products.

“TAFTA is comprehensive, covering trade in goods and services, and investment. The Agreement promotes best practice in a wide range of areas, including competition policy, e-commerce, industrial standards, quarantine procedures, intellectual property, government procurement and dispute settlement.

“Thailand will also eliminate or relax foreign equity restrictions in a number of sectors of interest to Australia, including mining, certain construction and distribution services, and management consultancy and hospitality services.”

Trade between Australia and Thailand continues to grow. In 2003, Thailand was Australia’s 12th largest market for exports and 13th largest source of imports. Two-way trade was worth $5.9 billion.

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning the publication of a new guide for doing business with Thailand. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today released a guide to assist exporters and companies take advantage of new business opportunities created under the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

The release of the Business Guide to the Thailand-AustraliaFree Trade Agreement, produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), marked today’s signing of TAFTA which is expected to enter into force in January 2005.

Mr Vaile said the publication was a practical, easy to read guide to TAFTA’s structure, benefits and requirements.

“The guide includes advice on selling goods to Thailand and the procedures companies should follow to register themselves and their goods for export to Thailand’s rapidly growing market,” Mr Vaile said.

On 18 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release on the benefits of the Thailand FTA for Australian exporters. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed approval by Parliament of the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA). Parliament has passed implementing legislation to allow TAFTA to enter into force on 1 January 2005. Bipartisan support for the FTA highlights the importance of this agreement to Australia’s exporters.

…

“Under TAFTA, more than $700 million of current Australianexports to Thailand will obtain immediate tariff cuts, while the savings on Thai customs duties are expected to be around $100 million in the first year alone.

“TAFTA will eliminate more than half of Thailand’s 5,000 tariffs – accounting for nearly 80 per cent of Australian exports. By 2010, 95 per cent of all current trade between Australia and Thailand will be completely free.

“Many Australian companies formerly locked out of the Thai market by high tariffs and quotas will enjoy new opportunities, particularly in areas such as agriculture, processed foods and beverages, mining and automotive products.

“TAFTA will bring significant improvements in business mobility and access for Australian services exporters and investors in the Thai market. Thailand has agreed to relax a number of its restrictive conditions relating to visas and work permits and will guarantee non-discriminatory treatment of Australian investments in Thailand.

“Thailand will also relax foreign equity restrictions in a number of sectors of interest to Australia, including mining, certain construction and distribution services, and management consultancy and hospitality services, Mr Vaile said.”

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Wine Industry Outlook Conference entitled ‘Emerging markets, new visions’. An extract from the speech follows:

There is also good news for the wine industry in the free trade agreement with Thailand.

While Thailand is a smaller market for our wine, tariffs on wine will be reduced from their current level of up to 60 per cent, to 40 per cent when the Agreement enters into force, and will then reduce to zero by 2015.

On 17 December 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release in relation to a new webpage to assist Australianexporters to Thailand. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today welcomed the launch of a new webpage that will help Australian exporters take advantage of the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) that comes into force on 1 January 2005.

“The website offers exporters a one-stop-shop, bringing together all necessary information and export documentation,” Mr Vaile said.

“It provides exporters with user friendly step-by-step guides, examples to follow, and links to other sources of information designed to make using and benefiting from TAFTA as easy as possible.

“The new webpage underlines the Government’s commitment to helping Australian business meet TAFTA’s procedural and documentary requirements and thereby reap the significant commercial opportunities the agreement offers. It builds on the business seminars conducted by Austrade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) throughout Australia and the well-received Business Guide to TAFTA produced by DFAT.

Free Trade Agreements – United States of America

On 20 February 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Business Breakfast Roundtable on USFTA concerning the Australia-US FTA. Extracts from the speech follow:

Once in force, the Agreement will offer enormous new opportunities in the US market for Australian companies from all sectors of the Australian economy. The dynamic effects and new opportunities the Agreement will create make this a forward-looking deal and one which will deliver long-term benefits for generations to come.

For many exporters already in the US market, the deal establishes greater market access and enhanced opportunities. But, importantly, for future generations, the deal should spur innovation and initiative in others not yet in the US market.

The deal will further integrate the Australian economy with the largest and most dynamic economy in the world.

…

Manufacturing

The outcome for manufactured goods is excellent – and one I am particularly proud of. In short, it delivers a great deal for Australian manufacturers. Almost all of Australia’s non-agricultural goods exports to the United States, worth almost A$6.5 billion last year, will be duty free from day one of the Agreement. The 25 percent tariff on light commercial vehicles that previously kept the Australian ute out of the US market will be removed immediately. And our auto parts exports, worth A$495 million in 2003, will be boosted by the immediate elimination of tariffs. Tariffs on textiles and some footwear will be phased out over a number of years.

Government Procurement

Another great success of the Agreement is in government procurement. Australia will be guaranteed non-discriminatory access to the US

procurement market. This will provide Australian goods and services providers with unprecedented access to a massive market – worth A$200 billion annually at the US Federal level – of which over 40% comprises the procurement of services, with the prospect that the coverage of the Agreement will be extended to State-level procurement. Australia will become a “designated” country for the purposes of US Federal procurement and Australia will have waiver from the Buy America Act.

For the first time, Australian companies will be competing on level terms with suppliers from other developed countries for US Government tenders. Information Technology (IT) procurement at the Federal level in the US amounts to about A$60 billion in recent years – with opportunities in hardware, software and professional services. I’m not underestimating the upfront investment required to win contracts in this market. That is the challenge for Australian business. But what we have done through the FTA is to remove the barriers to access so that bids from Australian firms will be considered on equal terms with the other major contenders.

Services

…

A key outcome on services is a commitment that Australian service suppliers will receive ‘national treatment’, ensuring they will not be discriminated against in the US market. We have achieved commitments in this area which go significantly beyond what the US has given on a most favoured nation basis in the WTO. Importantly, the US has agreed to lock in for Australia’s benefit any subsequent unilateral liberalisation of discriminatory measures.

The FTA also includes ground-breaking provisions on promoting the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a long-standing objective of Australia’s where progress has been far too slow. The FTA provides for the establishment of a Working Group with a specific mandate to report within two years on a range of issues relevant to professional services, which in the case of the United States are complicated by the existence of 50 different state-level regimes.

…

A Financial Services Committee will be established to consider specific issues of interest to Australian regard to cross-border trade in securities. Australia will be pursuing our interests in reducing regulatory duplication in regard to cross-border access for foreign securities markets and foreign collective investment schemes. Progress here will assist the future growth of the Australian Stock Exchange, companies listed on the exchange, Australian investors, and Australia’s funds management industry.

…

The end result on audiovisual was, in fact, excellent. It:

• preserves all existing local content requirements on free-to-air and Pay TV;

• allows the Government flexibility to significantly increase local content on free-to-air TV if it moves to digital multichannelling,

• allows the Government to increase the existing 10% expenditure quota on drama channels on Pay TV up to 20% if necessary, and to introduce similar expenditure quotas of up to 10% on four additional program formats (the arts, children’s programming, documentaries, and educational programming);

• allows the Government to intervene in the future on interactive media platforms to ensure Australian content is readily available on those platforms.

…

Intellectual Property

…

Closer harmonisation of intellectual property laws with the largest intellectual property market in the world will benefit:

Australian exporters to the United States by creating a more familiar and certain legal environment for the export of value-added goods to the US

Australian innovators by assisting them to attract investment from the United States because of greater familiarity with our legal system.

Australian copyright industries (including publishing, filmmaking and music) are among the fastest growing in Australia. These industries will benefit from stronger protection for copyright owners:

• including an increased term of protection for copyright material protecting Australia’s writers, filmmakers and other creative content providers

• and a speedy process allowing copyright owners, Internet Service Providers and subscribers to deal with allegedly infringing copyright material on the Internet.

The Pay TV industry will benefit from increased criminal and civil protection against the unlawful decoding of encrypted program carrying satellite signals. Australia and the United States will also work to minimise differences in laws and practices relating to patents, trademarks and designs, to further assist our rights holders to protect their intellectual property in the United States market.

Processed Food and Agriculture

On agriculture, the deal guarantees better access for our farmers:

• duties on 66% of all agricultural tariff lines will be eliminated immediately on implementation

• and a further 9% within four years.

On dairy, the FTA will immediately more than double our access for quota-restrained dairy products. Thereafter the additional preferential quotas will grow at an average of 5% per year forever.

…

On beef, the Agreement provides greater access for Australia’s number one export to the United States. In-quota tariffs will be eliminated immediately, over-quota duties will be phased out from years 9 to 18 of the Agreement and Australia will gain an 18.5 per cent increase in quota volumes over 18 years. The deal is worth $3 billion to the Australian beef industry over the 18 year period.

The bulk of our lamb and sheep meat exports – already valued at over A$340 million a year – will benefit from immediate tariff-free access, clearing the way for continued success in our biggest and fastest growing market.

On horticulture, Australia will get immediate zero tariff treatment for products such as oranges, mandarins, strawberries, tomatoes, cut flowers, olives and fresh macadamias.

Australian wine producers will benefit from all tariffs reducing to zero over 11 years, in what is already an almost billion dollar market.

And immediate removal of a 35 per cent tariff on canned tuna is likely to be worth up to $20 million in the first year for Australian producers, with the potential to create 70 new jobs in Port Lincoln alone.

Significantly for our wheat, sugar, rice and barley industries, the government was able in the negotiations to preserve all single-desk marketing arrangements.

…

The WTO

…

We seek access gains where we can, but securing big reform by the big subsidisers requires a global round. The US will not make major cuts to its subsidies or completely liberalise its markets without the benefit of similar action by the other big subsidised and closed markets – particularly the European Union and Japan. This is why Australia remains fully committed to the Doha round of trade negotiations – it remains our top trade policy priority.

There is no doubt multilateral liberalisation offers the best chance for the broadest and deepest gains for our exporters. Our pursuit of FTAs where this makes sense in no way diminishes our commitment to the WTO.

On 8 March 2004, the Australia–United States of America Free Trade Agreement, done at Washington DC on 18 May 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

Economic gains from the Agreement are expected to be significant. Extensive consultation and industry submissions highlighted a number of specific areas where Australian exporters would expect to benefit from greater access and opportunity in the US market. These formed the basis of the framework of Australian objectives for the negotiations. The Agreement will remove a significant number of direct and indirect trade barriers and creates new market access opportunities. It facilitates further trade and investment through more transparent, simplified and less costly processes for traders and investors in a number of areas. Furthermore, the Agreement establishes a number of mechanisms for ongoing facilitation and cooperation to promote trade and investment in the future.

…

The Agreement will create immediate market access opportunities for many sectors of the Australian economy. These include:

Agriculture: Duties on two-thirds of all agricultural tariffs – including in important commodities such as lamb, sheep meat and a range of horticultural products, will be eliminated immediately and duties on a further 9 per cent of tariff lines will be eliminated within four years. There will be greater access for two of Australia’s key agricultural export industries, beef and dairy, including immediate elimination of in-quota tariffs. The single desk arrangements for export marketing Australian commodities, and our quarantine and food safety regimes have been preserved.

Manufacturing: Duties on more than 97 percent of US non-agricultural tariff lines (excluding textiles and clothing), worth $6.48 billion in 2003, will be duty free from day one of the Agreement. By 2015, tariffs on textiles, some footwear and a handful of other items will be phased out, with all trade in non-agricultural goods free of duty. A mechanism to address non-tariff barriers will be established. Australian exporters have greater opportunities to understand and meet US requirements dealing with technical regulations and standards and a framework for exporters to work with government in tackling barriers will be established. Both Parties will eliminate customs duties on almost all automotive products from the day the agreement enters into force, including the 25 per cent US customs duty on utes (“light commercial vehicles”). Australian duties on passenger motor vehicles will be phased out by 2010.

Services: The Agreement binds liberal access for Australian service suppliers, including for professional, business, education, environmental, financial and transport services. A framework to promote mutual recognition of professional services has been developed.

Financial services: The Agreement binds liberal conditions of access for Australian financial services providers to the world’s largest financial market. Through a Financial Services Committee, the Parties will consider ways to integrate further their financial sectors such as through access for foreign securities markets and for foreign collective investment schemes. The Financial Services Committee will report on these issues within two years of the Agreement entering into force.

Government procurement: The Agreement grants access to the large (A$200 billion) US federal government procurement market that is currently closed to Australian firms. The scope of the Government Procurement Chapter may be extended to cover State-level procurement depending on the States and Territories interest in being covered by the Chapter. This matter must be settled before the Agreement is signed. All US federal government contracts over US$58,550 (and in construction over US$6,725,000) will be open to Australian firms. Australian preferences for small businesses and indigenous people will remain.

Investment: The Agreement creates a stronger framework for investment protection that should continue to promote our largest investment relationship. The Agreement also prohibits a range of trade and investment distorting performance requirements. In recognition of the robust domestic legal systems in both countries, there is no provision for investors to use international arbitration to pursue concerns about government actions (Investor-State Dispute Settlement). Australia retains screening of foreign investments of major significance.

Competition: Under the Agreement, there will be even closer cooperation with the United States on competition-related issues. Businesses and individuals will be treated fairly in enforcing competition law. Consumer protection agencies will work together in combating illegal activity. Consumers and investors defrauded or deceived will have greater redress.

Telecommunications: The Agreement contains WTO-plus rules on major suppliers and pro-competitive regulatory frameworks for Australian and US firms. There will be a new high level avenue for Government and industry consultations on market access issues.

E-commerce: The Agreement provides that there will be no barriers to trade conducted electronically and Australia will still be able to regulate for public policy purposes.

Preservation of important public policy programs: The Agreement also preserves Australia’s ability to maintain important public policy programs, including:

• the affordability of medicines under a sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS): The Agreement does not impair Australia’s ability to deliver fundamental policy objectives in health care and does not change the fundamental architecture of the PBS. Australia will make improvements to the transparency and timeliness of PBS processes and Australians will benefit from faster access to subsidies for new prescription medicines; and

• local content on Australian media: Australia retains the power to regulate for Australian content, not only in existing forms of media but also, where necessary, in new media (interactive and/or video services).

Implementation of the Agreement will also enhance Australia’s broader trade, economic and security interests. It will help make Australia a more attractive trade and investment partner for third countries by improving our competitive position. A substantive FTA between the two countries signals our strong support for trade liberalisation and helps promote an open global trading environment. It strengthens our relationship with our most important ally and our largest trading and investment partner.

On 30 April 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release on the benefits of the Australia-US FTA for the Australian economy. An extract from the release follows:

Economic modelling on the impact of the Free Trade Agreement recently negotiated between Australia and the United States proves beyond doubt the agreement will provide enormous benefits to the Australian economy, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said today.

The economic analysis by the Centre for International Economics suggests that a decade after coming into force the Australia-United States FTA will result in an annual boost to the Australian economy of $6.1 billion.

Other key findings from the study include:

• Over the first 20 years of the agreement, the present value of the benefit to the Australian economy exceeds $57 billion.

• Over 40,000 jobs will be created and real wages will rise.

• All states and territories will benefit.

• There will be no material impact on the price of drugs.

• And, the report identifies the clear costs of not doing the FTA.

“At the time I had no doubt the deal we negotiated in Washington was in the national interest,” Mr Vaile said. “Today’s release of an economic analysis by CIE backs this judgement.”

“The CIE has no doubt that the FTA will be worth billions of dollars to the Australian economy.”

The FTA is currently being reviewed by two Parliamentary committees and is the subject of wide public scrutiny. Legislation enabling the agreement to enter into force should go before both Houses of the Australian Parliament in August.

On 23 June 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered the Second Reading Speech on the Introduction of the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 to the Australian Parliament. Extracts from the speech follow:

I am pleased to introduce the implementing legislation for the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. This FTA has been several years in the making including eleven months of face to face negotiation. The outcome is an unprecedented opportunity for Australia and Australian exporters.

The Agreement will immediately extend and intensify Australia’s trade relationship with the world’s largest and most dynamic economy and largest merchandise and services exporter and importer. From the day it enters into force it will deliver real benefits and opportunities for Australian exporters. In the longer-term, dynamic gains from the Agreement promise to yield even larger benefits to the Australian economy and to Australian families.

Independent economic analysis suggests the FTA will result in a boost to the Australian economy of over $6 billion a year one decade after coming into force and create more than 30,000 additional Australian jobs.

…

This legislation presents the Parliament with its opportunity to emphatically endorse this landmark agreement. Passage of this legislation through the Australian Parliament leading to the entry into force of the Agreement will see Australian industry benefiting from the immediate elimination of virtually all US tariffs on Australian industrial products. It will deliver the early removal of two thirds of all US agricultural tariffs (including lamb and horticultural products) and the elimination of a further 9 percent of agricultural tariffs within 4 years. Parliament’s green light to the legislation will deliver significantly improved access conditions for beef and the immediate doubling of Australia’s dairy exports to the US market. It will deliver the strong legal protections that will underpin services trade and Australian investment in the United States.

Of course Australia did not secure all its objectives in the Agreement. And neither did the United States. Reaching agreement with the United States Government required moderating some of our industry interests in the US market. The outcome on sugar was a particular disappointment. Similarly, United States negotiators wound back some of their ambitions in the interests of concluding the deal.

…

The Government preserved the critical elements of our quarantine regime, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the right to ensure local content in Australian broadcasting and audiovisual services.

Let there be no misunderstanding on this point. The Agreement I signed in Washington on 18 May – and the legislation I am introducing today – does not, and will not have any detrimental effect on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). It will not cause drug prices to rise. It will not delay the availability of generic medicines. It does not touch legislation implementing the PBS. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will remain the gatekeeper to the system, the Minister for Health and Ageing will remain the only authority capable of listing a drug on the PBS, and cost effectiveness will remain the basis against which applications to list a drug will be judged.

The Government’s agreement to increased transparency and a review process is consistent with current PBS legislation. No change is required to that legislation to effect our commitment to the United States under this Agreement.

…

The US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 consists of 9 schedules amending relevant Australian legislation to fulfil our obligations under the FTA. Passage of this legislation is the primary process in our domestic implementation – prompt passage will allow us to meet the target date of 1 January 2005 we have agreed with the United States for entry into force.

…

Schedule One amends the Customs Act 1901 to incorporate the rules for determining whether goods originate in the United States, and are therefore eligible for preferential duty rates, and to introduce powers to allow Customs to conduct verifications of Australian exporters to ensure that the goods they export to the United States were produced in Australia.

These new rules have been endorsed by Australian business as a cheaper and easier way to prove origin.

For a long time, stakeholders in the agricultural sector have been arguing that innovation in new chemistry and alternative technologies has been stifled by existing data protection provisions. In May 2003, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon Judith Troeth, achieved agreement with key stakeholders, including all State and Territory Governments, on a suite of reforms. These reforms build into the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 mechanisms encouraging early entry of newer innovation in chemical technologies and develop a system providing additional reward to those innovators who move to support the more vulnerable users within Australia’s agricultural sector. The proposed reforms have been strongly supported and keenly anticipated by nearly all stakeholders, including manufacturers and users and all State and Territory Governments.

The obligations arising from the FTA are entirely consistent with the suite of reforms that had already been developed. Schedule Two of the Bill amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to implement the first part of Senator Troeth’s reforms. It has not been appropriate, nor is it desirable, to inject additional measures into the AUSFTA Bill that might confuse the debate on the core rationale for its introduction. However, in recognition of the importance of these reforms to a very broad range of stakeholders, the Government remains committed to implementing the full suite of reforms in a second Bill as soon as is practicable after this Bill has been introduced.

Schedule Three amends the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 to provide specific procedures for the owner of a trademark to object to the determination of an Australian geographical indication (GI) on the basis of pre-existing trademark rights and procedures for the cancellation of an Australian GI. This amendment simply codifies the existing practice of the GI Committee of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and has been developed in close consultation with the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia.

Schedule Four amends the Life Insurance Act 1995 to allow foreign life insurance companies to establish branches in Australia for the purpose of carrying out life insurance business in Australia. Currently only entities incorporated in Australia are able to conduct life insurance business in Australia. For an entity to establish a branch in Australia for the purposes of carrying on life insurance business, it will need to be incorporated in a foreign country, be authorised to carry on life insurance business in that foreign country, and meet the conditions contained in the regulations to the Life Insurance Act 1995.

Schedule Five amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (FATA) to implement changes to foreign investment policy agreed as an outcome of the AUSFTA. Specifically, it enables

• exemption from the Act for acquisitions of interests in financial sector companies covered by powers under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998;

• introduction of a screening threshold of $800 million for acquisitions of interests in Australian businesses in non-sensitive sectors;

• introduction of a screening threshold of $50 million for acquisitions of interests in Australian businesses in defined sensitive sectors and by the United States Government. The sensitive sectors include: media; telecommunications; transport; encryption, security and communications technologies; the development, manufacture or supply of training, goods, equipment or technologies for the Australian or other armed forces, or able to be used for a military purpose; and the extraction of uranium or plutonium or the operation of nuclear facilities;

Schedule Six amends the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to empower the Finance Minister to issue directions to the directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly-owned Commonwealth companies regarding procurement. The directions may apply, adopt or incorporate some or all of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, issued by the Finance Minister under the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997.

Schedule Seven amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, primarily to provide that an applicant seeking to include therapeutic goods in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods must provide one of two certificates. Either, they must certify that the applicant does not propose to market those therapeutic goods in a way or in circumstances that would involve an infringement of a patent, or they may certify that the applicant proposes to market the therapeutic good before the expiry of the patent for such goods and that the applicant has notified the patentee about its application to include goods in the Register.

These amendments carefully balance the interests of the generic and innovator pharmaceuticals industries in Australia, while ensuring that the primary responsibility for resolving patent disputes remains with the patent holder and the party challenging the validity of a patent. These amendments protect the capacity to ‘springboard’ generics onto the market – ensuring that the US FTA will not delay the entry of drugs onto the PBS.

Schedule Eight amends the Patents Act 1990 to ensure Australiacomplies with the obligation in AUSFTA that a patent can only be revoked on the same grounds as it could have been refused. The amendments extend the grounds on which the grant of a patent can be opposed to include an invention not being useful or having been secretly used. The amendments also remove a ground of revocation (non-compliance with a condition of a patent) which is no longer applicable to granted patents. These amendments protect the existing grounds for revocation under Australian law.

Schedule Nine introduces a range of amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 to give effect to Australia’s obligations under AUSFTA. Certain amendments are also made to allow Australia to accede to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty 1996 (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996 (WPPT).

The amendments to the Copyright Act provide:

• New rights – both economic and moral – for performers in sound recordings;

• Extension of the term of protection for most copyright material by 20 years;

• Alignment of the term of protection of photographs with other artistic works;

• Implementation of a scheme for limitation of remedies available against Carriage Service Providers (CSPs) for copyright infringement in relation to specified activities carried out on their systems and networks, providing certain conditions are satisfied;

• Wider criminal provisions, including for copyright infringement that was undertaken for commercial advantage or profit, and significant infringement on a commercial scale;

• New provisions for the broader protection of encoded broadcasts (such as pay TV);

• Broader protection for electronic rights management information; and

• Protection against a wider range of unauthorised reproductions.

These changes are significant. But as I suggested earlier in this statement, it is important to be clear that these amendments do not represent the wholesale adoption of the US intellectual property regime. We have not stepped back from best practice elements of Australia’s copyright regime – but we have strengthened protection in certain circumstances – providing a platform for Australia to attract and incubate greater creativity and innovation.

…

This is an enormous and historic opportunity to secure preferential access to the largest and most dynamic economy in the world. We owe it to future generations of Australians to approve this FTA as soon as possible. It is overwhelmingly in the national interest and I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

On 22 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release concerning automotive products and the Australia-US FTA. An extract from the release follows:

Australia’s automotive parts exporters will be a key beneficiary of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), Mark Vaile said today at the National Convention of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers (FAPM).

Reaffirming the Howard Government’s commitment to pursuing market openings for our automotive exports through bilateral trade agreements, Mr Vaile forecast continued strong export growth for the sector as a result of the Australia-United States FTA.

“The potential opportunities to increase our $750 million worth of automotive exports to this market are huge. After all, more cars are sold in the US in a week than are manufactured in Australia each year.

“The US has agreed to remove, from day one, all tariffs on automotive products.

“This means the elimination of the 25 per cent tariff on light commercial vehicles, which will provide a significant opportunity for Australian ute manufacturers.

“I acknowledge and welcome FAPM’s consistent support for the Australia-US FTA.

Independent economic analysis suggests the FTA will result in a boost to the Australian economy of over $6 billion a year, one decade after coming into force, and create more than 30,000 additional Australian jobs.

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Australian= Services Roundtable in relation to regional and bilateral agreements. An extract from the speech follows:

Many of you would be aware the United States is by far the largest export market for Australian= services – worth $4.8 billion last year. On services the US FTA will provide a solid foundation to build on. In particular:

• the agreement gives Australia binding commitments by the US on national treatment in the services area, going well beyond what the US has made in the WTO.

• including in education, professional services such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, engineers and accountants, and financial services.

• one of the biggest gains is the agreement to set up a Working Group on Professional Services.

• this will provide a high profile mechanism through which the two Parties can encourage mutual recognition of professional service suppliers.

• on financial services, the two countries have agreed to promote further integration of their financial services sector and a Financial Services Committee will be established to consider ways to promote cross-border trade in securities.

In addition, we will gain non-discriminatory access to the $200 billion market in US federal government purchases of goods and services (and additional access to the $200 billion US state government procurement market).

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Wine Industry Outlook Conference entitled “Emerging markets, new visions”. An extract from the speech follows

Under the Agreement all US tariffs on wine will reduce to zero over 11 years and, importantly, the FTA will also help restore our competitiveness against others who already have preferential access to the US market such as Chile and South Africa.

On 29 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release on the Airservices Australia $20 million US Government Contract. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile today congratulated Airservices Australia on their successful bid to provide tower air traffic control services for the United States Federal Aviation Administration.

…

“It is a timely reminder of the tremendous business opportunities that the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement will bring with the most dynamic economy in the world.”

The Airservices contract, to provide tower air traffic control services in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan, will commence on 1 January 2005, the same day the AUSFTA comes into force. Independent economic analysis suggests that the FTA with the US will generate an annual $6 billion economic benefit for Australia and create over 30,000 jobs.

“The AUSFTA offers our exporters unprecedented access to the $200 billion US Federal Government procurement market and 29 key US State Government procurement markets,” Mr Vaile said.

Airservices Australia’s five year contract win follows Government legislative changes in August 2003 to give it greater freedom to operate commercially in Australia and overseas and was achieved with extensive support from Austrade’s office in Washington.

Investment Promotion and Protection – MOU – China

On 28 April 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, issued a press release on Australia-China trade relations. An extract from the release follows:

Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile today completed a week-long visit to China which underlined the deepening trade and investment ties between the countries.

“The Australia-China trade and economic relationship is set to move into a new, expanded phase,” Mr Vaile said following visits to Guangzhou, Shanghai, the Boao Forum for Asia, Beijing and Hong Kong from 21–27 April 2004.

…

During the visit, Mr Vaile witnessed the signing of two important investment Memorandums of Understanding with key Chinese Government Ministries which will promote and accelerate two-way investment in key sectors of mutual interest.

“The level of two-way investment does not match the strong performance of bilateral merchandise and services trade and I am sure the new arrangements will provide a strong platform to facilitate greater investment,” Mr Vaile said.

“China’s opening to the world and its emergence as a major growing industrial power is one of the most significant and positive global developments of the past 25 years. Australia is well placed to assist China in this economic growth now and into the future.”

South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement

On 8 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, issued a press release regarding the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. An extract from the release follows:

Further to discussions at last year’s Pacific Islands Forum with Prime Minister Qarase of Fiji, I am pleased to announce that Australia has decided to extend the lifespan of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement (textiles, clothing and footwear provisions) as part of our efforts to support Fiji industry.

In extending the scheme, the government also recognises the interests of Australian industry in continuing to supply fabric to Fiji.

The scheme, which facilitates duty free access to Australia for textiles, clothing and footwear products manufactured in Forum island countries, was due to expire on 31 December 2004.

It will now be extended until 31 December 2011, with a review of the scheme’s effectiveness to be carried out in 2007.

Textiles, clothing and footwear is the second largest industry in Fiji, employing some 20,000 people, many of them women. The extension of the scheme will provide some assurance to those workers and companies as they adjust to the competitive international trade environment.

The government, in consultation with the Fiji Government and relevant industries in both countries, will continue to discuss other possible measures to help create a more viable textiles, clothing and footwear sector in Fiji.

Telecommunications – Constitution of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity

On 22 June 2004, the Amendments, made at New Delhi in 2002, to the Constitution of the Asia Pacific Telecommunity (Bangkok 1976) as amended by the Management Committee Meeting (Colombo 1991), were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The Asia-Pacific Telecommunity is a regional communications development cooperation organisation established by treaty, whose membership includes most of the Governments of Asia, Oceania and the Pacific Islands. It also provides a forum through which regional governments build consensus on communications issues for coordinated input to meetings of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

Australia aims to promote adoption by APT Member Governments of policies and regulatory approaches that will enhance the development of open and competitive telecommunications markets and the spread of online services within those markets.

Australia supported the 2002 Constitutional amendments in order to assist in making the APT a stronger, more effective and influential regional telecommunications body.

Telecommunications – Convention of the International Telecommunication Union

On 2 March 2004, the Amendments, made at Marrakesh 2002, to the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union

(Geneva 1992) as amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

The ITU provides an international framework for the operations of the communications industries and an international forum to put forward Australian and regional perspectives on radiocommunications, broadcasting and telecommunications. Australia promotes the development of timely and cost-effective global open standards that support the development of efficient, inter-operable telecommunications networks by reducing barriers to trade through the standardisation of communications systems and harmonisation of regulatory arrangements.

The 2002 amendments to the Constitution and Convention further advance reforms towards efficiency and relevance in the operation of the ITU. Australia was key in negotiating these reforms leading up to and during the PP-02 conference.

Australia supports ongoing reform in the operation of the ITU and of the International Telecommunications Regulations, to support Australia’s liberalised telecommunications regime and the development of an efficient, export-oriented Australian communications industry. As a significant financial contributor, Australia also supports moves toward greater efficiencies in ITU budget and administrative operations.

Changes to the Constitution and Convention provide for greater flexibility in the working methods and procedures of the three ITU Sectors – viz. the Telecommunication Standardisation Sector; the Development Sector; and the Radiocommunications Sector. A new provision in the Constitution authorises each Sector to establish its own working methods.

The 2002 amendments to the Constitution and Convention further advance reforms towards efficiency and relevance in the operation of the ITU.

Timor Sea Treaty – Oil and Gas Fields

On 10 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, answered a question on notice in relation to the East Timor Oil and Gas Fields. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

(4) With the entry into force of the Timor Sea Treaty and the conclusion of an International Unitisation Agreement for Greater Sunrise, there is already in existence a legal framework for developing the petroleum resources of the Timor Sea for the mutual benefit of both East Timor and Australia. The Treaty gives East Timor 90 per cent of production from the Joint Petroleum Development Area (JPDA). Revenues as a result of this distribution will be a major contribution to creating a sound economic base and long-term stability in East Timor.

(5) Following scoping talks on the maritime boundary delimitation process, formal negotiations are due to commence in April this year.

Trade Negotiations – Multilateral, Bilateral and Regional Negotiations – Interrelationship

On 2 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, delivered a speech to the Institute for International Business, Economics and Law, University of Adelaide, entitled ‘Challenges beyond Doha’. Extracts from the speech follow:

It has been said that the pursuit by WTO members of an increasing number of bilateral or regional trade arrangements challenges the WTO’s continued relevance and effectiveness. I see such agreements less as competition than as eventual forces for the convergence of trade liberalisation. Achieving such convergence of bilateral and multilateral trade liberalisation is part of Australia’s integrated trade policy approach.

…

It has also been suggested that so many new and individual commitments, disciplines and rules – particularly in dispute settlement – will clutter and complicate the international trading system:

• no-one will know the applicable rules

• sometimes several rules will apply

• and they might conflict.

As you might expect, I don’t agree.

These agreements are ‘WTO plus’ – they build on, but don’t supplant, the rules of the WTO. We are careful to ensure that our agreements are WTO consistent and we are working in the WTO and in forums like APEC to ensure that others can do the same, ensuring greater transparency and strengthening rules governing WTO consistency.

The main road will always lead back to the deeper benefits of multilateral liberalisation and the protection of multilateral disciplines. And FTAs and RTAs can also help put us all on the same road. Australia is working to ensure that the WTO remains the point of convergence of an integrated global trading system – multilateral, regional and bilateral.

…

The WTO has its own responsibilities and capacities, but so do other international organisations and systems. We also have to recognise the responsibilities of states.

We must keep the WTO to its core business.

Trying to expand the WTO and its Agreements and negotiations into areas dealt with in other multilateral forums or instruments – for example environmental protection – only decreases its effectiveness in delivering economic growth and development gains.

And in some cases introduces the possibility of new trade barriers being created, further undermining the capacity of the international trading system to deliver further economic growth.

Similarly the WTO is neither an international development nor financing institution – although Members are committed to capacity building and technical assistance to developing countries.

Greater coherence, information sharing and co-ordination between multilateral institutions are desirable. But this doesn’t mean all such organisations take on each other’s agendas. Equally, multilateral institutions – including the WTO – should not be called upon to make up for lack of sound domestic governance or poor internal policy coherence.

WTO members’ domestic responsibilities – including their responsibility to balance all their international obligations – should not be laid at the door of the WTO.

United Nations – Commission on International Trade Law

On 4 October 2004, Mr Ben Playle, Second Secretary for the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Sixth Committee on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. An extract from the statement follows:

In a world where commercial relations and technological developments transcend physical borders, the continued work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, with its focus on harmonisation of international trade laws is crucial.

Australia has a long involvement with the work of the UNCITRAL dating back to its inception in 1966 and we remain committed to its central goals of harmonising laws relating to international trade.

Australia is grateful for having been elected to the Commission this year and was also honoured to be present at the first meeting of the expanded Commission. Australia is pleased to note the creation of the International Trade Law Division within the Office of Legal Affairs. In this regard Australia welcomes the work of the Division to provide enhanced training and technical legal assistance for developing countries and those with economies in transition.

In relation to the work of the Commission Australia would like to make particular mention of the endorsement of the final draft of the legislative guide on insolvency law by the Commission.

Australia would like to congratulate the dedicated work of the Working Group on Insolvency for the draft guide, which was an Australian initiative.

Australia would also like to welcome the progress of the Working Group on Transport Law on the draft instrument on the Carriage of Goods by sea. Australia strongly endorses the move to create a modern international instrument on the carriage of goods by sea. We note our particular support for electronic commercial shipping documents, the abolition of the nautical fault defence, and allowing access to the temperature records held by the carrier for temperature-controlled goods.

Australia would also like to express its support for the work of the Working Group on Arbitration and Conciliation. In this regard, Australia would wish to join with other members of the Commission in hoping that this particular Working Group is able to move past the issue of ex parte measures, which is delaying the work of the Commission.

Australia is pleased with the progress of the Working Group on Electronic Commerce and in particular welcomes the expected draft convention on electronic contracting due next year.

Australia looks forward to the update of the 1994 UNCITRAL Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services. Australia will be seeking greater consideration of the issues that deal particularly with: confidentiality and security, authentication as well as registration through the internet of tender management systems.

Australia would also like to note the continued work by the Working Group on Security Interests of the draft legislative guide on secured interests.

Australia would wish to close by commending the staff of UNCITRAL for their contributions to the work of the Commission. Australia is looking forward to building on its past contributions as a participant and playing an active role in the future work of the Commission.

United Nations – Development – 2005 UN Heads of Government Summit

On 22 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the. An extract from the statement follows:

We concur with the Secretary General’s view that the 2005 Summit will be an event of decisive importance, and that it should result in a ‘single integrated package of decisions’.

Of course it would be naïve, and unhelpful, to deny that states will approach the event with different priorities.

However, it is our firm belief that for the Summit to be successful, no one area, whether it be development, or peace and security, or human rights or institutional reform, can be singled out to the detriment of another. And no issue can be ignored.

The preparatory process for the Summit is crucial. We agree it should be transparent, inclusive and flexible. Ministers should be included in a deliberate and targeted way.

…

While the President of the General Assembly should lead this process, we agree with the suggestion already made that he could usefully be assisted by a group of friends.

The decision on the timing of the High Level Dialogue on financing for development is an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to development. It is essential that the Dialogue has a high profile, as well as substantively contribute to the Summit. Holding the Dialogue back to back with the Summit will give the Dialogue the profile it deserves, but is too late to feed into the Summit’s outcome.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) – Copyright Treaty

On 22 June 2004, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), adopted by the Diplomatic Conference at Geneva on 20 December 1996, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

In December 1996, the WCT and the WIPO Phonograms and Performances Treaty (WPPT) were adopted in Geneva at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Questions. The treaties were designed to supplement the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) and the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) by expanding rights for owners of copyright in works, films and sound recordings and for performers in the online environment. Both treaties mark an important advance in improving international copyright standards to meet the challenges posed for protecting copyright and related rights in the online environment.

Accession to the WCT is in Australia’s national interest in providing adequate economic benefits to Australian copyright owners by securing improved protection for their works and productions in the markets of our major trading partners and a growing number of other overseas markets. Given that Australian law is already largely compliant with the obligations of the WCT, it is in Australia’s interests to enable Australia’s creators to receive a corresponding level of protection in all other treaty member countries.

World Intellectual Property Organisation – Performances and Phonograms Treaty

On 22 June 2004, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), done at Geneva on 20 December 1996, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

In December 1996, the WPPT and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) were adopted in Geneva at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Questions. The treaties were designed to supplement the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) and the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) by expanding rights for owners of copyright in works, films and sound recordings and for performers in the online environment. Both treaties mark an important advance in improving international copyright standards to meet the challenges posed for protecting copyright and related rights in the online environment.

Accession to the WPPT is in Australia’s national interest in providing adequate economic benefits to Australian copyright owners and performers by securing improved protection for their productions and performances in the markets of our major trading partners and other overseas markets. As Australian law is already compliant with the majority of the obligations of the WPPT, it is in Australia’s interests to enable its performers and copyright owners to receive a corresponding level of protection in all other treaty member countries.

World Trade Organization – Disputes – EU Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs

On 23 April 2004, Australia presented its first written submission to a WTO Disputes Settlement Panel on the European regulatory regime governing the registration and protection of Geographical Indications (GIs). In August 2004 Australia presented its rebuttal submission to the Panel. An extract from the first written submission follows:

This dispute concerns the regime established by the European Communities (EC) for the registration and protection of geographical indications – or GIs – for agricultural products and foodstuffs on a Community-wide basis. The dispute does not concern the registration and/or protection of GIs for wines or spirits.

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“Regulation No. 2081/92”) established the regulatory framework that governs the complex EC regime. In addition to Council Regulation No. 2081/92, there is a long list of subsidiary regulations at Community level. Regulation No. 2081/92 expressly requires EC Member States to perform some specific activities and authorises the Member States to perform other actions at their discretion. EC Member State national courts and the European Court of Justice enforce the protection of GIs afforded by Regulation No. 2081/92.

Since its adoption in 1992, Regulation No. 2081/92 itself has been substantially amended on two occasions: in 1997, relating principally to transitional issues arising from the proposed registration of geographic terms under Regulation No. 2081/92; and more extensively in 2003, in part “to guarantee that the Community registration procedure is available” to WTO Members meeting conditions of reciprocity and equivalence. Further, GIs have been continuously registered under the regime since registrations commenced in 1996.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“the TRIPS Agreement” or “TRIPS”) expressly recognises geographical indications as a category of intellectual property. In this dispute, Australia is not contesting the EC’s right:

• to register and/or protect GIs as intellectual property;

• to implement in its law more extensive protection for GIs than is required to be provided by the TRIPS Agreement;

• to limit that more extensive protection to GIs that meet a more rigorous attributive test than is required by the TRIPS Agreement, while protecting GIs that otherwise conform with the definition at TRIPS Article22.1 through individual EC Member State legislation; or

• not to offer more extensive protection at the Community level to GIs which conform only to the basic definition of a GI at TRIPS Article22.1.

However, the EC is providing that more extensive protection for GIs in a way that contravenes other provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the GATT 1994” or “GATT”), of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“the TBT Agreement” or “TBT”) and, as a consequence, of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“the WTO Agreement”).

Specifically, the EC is failing to provide the level of protection of trademarks expressly required to be conferred pursuant to various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, including because the EC regime:

• denies to the owner of a registered trademark the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion, contrary to TRIPS Article16.1;

• denies to the owner of a registered trademark a presumption of a likelihood of confusion in case of use of an identical sign for identical goods, contrary to TRIPS Article16.1;

• denies to nationals of other WTO Members effective protection against unfair competition and appropriate legal remedies to repress effectively all acts of unfair competition, contrary to TRIPS Article2.1 incorporating Articles10bis(1) and 10ter(1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (“the Paris Convention (1967)” or “Paris”); and

• denies to nationals of other WTO Members enforcement procedures so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of a trademark right, and associated procedural and due process rights, contrary to TRIPS Articles 41 and 42.

Similarly, the EC’s failure to provide at Community level the legal means for interested parties to prevent – in respect of a GI registered, or proposed to be registered, under the EC regime – misleading use or use which constitutes an act of unfair competition is contrary to TRIPS Article 22.2.

In relation to the registration of GIs under the regime, the EC fails to provide national treatment:

• to the products of other WTO Members, contrary to GATT

Article III:4 as well as TBT Article 2.1; and

• in the protection of intellectual property, contrary to TRIPS Articles 2.1 (incorporating Paris Article2) and 3.1.

Further, the EC regime comprises a technical regulation that is more restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create, contrary to TBT Article 2.2.

Australia reiterates that it is not contesting the EC’s right to offer more extensive protection to GIs than is required to be offered pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement. However, if this right is to be exercised at the Community level, so too should the interconnected obligations be fulfilled at the Community level. Australia submits that, if the EC is to offer “one-stop” Community level registration of GIs for either EC nationals or products, it must also, for example, offer a “one-stop” Community level means: for interested parties to prevent, in respect of that GI registration, any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Paris Article10bis, consistent with the requirement of Paris Article10ter; for trademark right holders to exercise their rights in respect of the registration of GIs under the regime; and for the registration of a GI from another WTO Member. Requiring trademark owners to initiate separate legal proceedings in up to 25 national courts to exercise the rights required to be bestowed on them under the TRIPS Agreement as these relate to a GI registered, or proposed to be registered, under the “one-stop” Community level EC regime is, in Australia’s view, fundamentally at odds with the object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement.

For the reasons set out in detail in this Submission, Australia submits that the Panel should find that the EC regime for the registration and protection of GIs is inconsistent with the EC’s obligations pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994, the TBT Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

World Trade Organization

– Disputes – European Sugar Regime

On 13 February 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release regarding the European sugar regime. An extract from the release follows:

On 12 February in Geneva, Australia lodged its first submission to the WTO Panel examining our complaint that EU export subsidies on sugar are in violation of the EU’s WTO obligations,” Mr Vaile

said.

“The EU is the world’s largest exporter of white sugar and is almost unique among the major developed countries in subsidising its sugar exports. The EU spends close to $2 billion a year on sugar export subsidies with exports averaging about five million tonnes a year.

“Australia believes EU sugar exports are three to four million tonnes in excess of its WTO quantity commitments and its sugar export subsidies are more than double its WTO export subsidy expenditure commitments.”

Australia is the world’s fourth largest exporter of sugar. The Australian sugar industry depends on the world market for around 80 per cent of its income. It is more exposed than any other country to world market prices. EU sugar export subsidies are badly affecting the incomes of one of the world’s most efficient sugar industries.

“The Australian sugar industry is fully supportive of our WTO challenge and has provided valuable input in the preparation of this case,” Mr Vaile

said.

“Brazil and Thailand, the world’s first and third largest sugar exporters have joined with Australia in this challenge.

“Australia also continues to seek substantial outcomes for its sugar industry as part of the Doha Round.

“A fair go for our sugar industry requires a concerted push that involves all the big subsidisers – the EU and the United States in particular – and that is what we have been working at with our industry in the WTO.”

The Panel is scheduled to report before the end of this year. Panel reports may be appealed on questions of law.

On 31 March 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release concerning Australia’s WTO

challenge to the European sugar regime. An extract from the release follows:

Australia put its case before a World Trade Organisation panel in Geneva overnight hearing Australia, Brazil and Thailand’s challenge to the European Communities’ (EC sugar export subsidies, Trade Minister Mark Vaile

announced today.

“Australia is challenging the EC because we believe the EC is exporting more subsidised sugar than it is legally entitled to under WTO rules and also exceeds its agreed limits on budgetary support for such subsidies,” Mr Vaile said.

Despite being one of the world’s highest cost producers, the EC is the second largest sugar exporter, with exports around 5 million tonnes a year (compared to Australia’s exports of around 4.2 million tones). The EC spends around EURO 7 billion (A$11.3 billion) in support of its sugar sector, including more than EURO 1 billion (A$1.6 billion) on export subsidies.

At the panel hearing, Australia strongly rebutted arguments made by the EC in defence of its regime, which included claims that Australia, Brazil and Thailand were acting in bad faith by launching this WTO case.

“This case is important for Australia, and other competitive sugar exporters, because if successful it will require the EC to change its sugar regime which has a highly distorting and depressive effect on world sugar prices,” Mr Vaile said.

“The case also has implications for efforts in the Doha round of trade negotiations to eliminate all agricultural export subsidies. The Australian sugar industry has strongly supported the Government’s action in taking this case.”

A large number of other interested WTO Members will address the panel as third parties in the case. These include members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries which currently have preferential access to the EC’s sugar market. The ACP countries have expressed concerns about the implications of this case for them. However, Australia, Brazil and Thailand have consistently explained that the case is about the EC’s breach of its WTO commitments and does not challenge the preferential access provided by the EC to the ACP countries.

A second panel session will take place 11-12 May this year, with an interim report due in July and the final decision expected in September this year. The panel’s report is appealable on points of law to the WTO’s Appellate Body.

On 16 October 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release in relation to the WTO dispute settlement report on the European sugar regime. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

today welcomed the public release in Geneva of a WTO dispute settlement report which has found that European Community (EC) export subsidies on sugar exceed its WTO obligations.

“In a great win for hard-working Australian sugar farmers, the Panel has today agreed with Australia that the EC is in breach of its WTO obligations in relation to sugar export subsidies,” Mr Vaile

said.

The EC has been cross subsidising exports of surplus sugar at levels of up to 3 million tonnes and excluding from its export subsidy reduction commitments directly subsidised exports of 1.6 million tonnes. The Panel found that both schemes are WTO inconsistent.

The Panel upheld claims by Australia, Brazil and Thailand that the EC must limit its export subsidies in the sugar sector to €499 million (A$ 838 million) on a total quantity of 1.273 million tonnes a year.

Mr Vaile

said the EC has been spending up to €1.3 billion (approximately A$ 2.2 billion) a year on an annual average of more than 5 million tonnes of sugar exports. Subject to appeal, the findings would require the EC to withdraw up to 4 million tonnes a year of subsidised exports from the world market and to more than halve its annual budgetary outlays on export subsidies

Panel reports are subject to appeal and legal outcomes might not be finalised before the first quarter of 2005. But that time frame would not prevent the EC from reducing its export subsidies as part of a 2005 package of reforms to its sugar regime. The EC is currently proposing to defer consideration of the export subsidy elements of reforms until 2008.

As the Panel has confirmed – and as the EC has now acknowledged – there is no reason why EC implementation of its export subsidy obligations should affect the access currently provided to some developing country sugar exporters in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (including Fiji).

Australia had previously given assurances to Fiji and others that it would not seek to challenge their preferential access to the EC market and has consistently called on the EC to guarantee that it would continue to honour its commitments to those countries.

World Trade Organization

– Freight Logistics Initiative

On 5 April 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release in relation to the Freight Logistics Initiative. An extract from the release follows:

Australia has launched an initiative in the World Trade Organisation urging countries to make legally-binding commitments on a ‘whole-of-supply-chain’ view of the movement of freight, Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced today.

“Whether an Australian business is trying to get into overseas markets for fresh agricultural produce or provides inputs to a ‘just-in-time’ production process, they need their product to arrive at the other end at the right time, in the right condition, and at the right price,” Mr Vaile said.

“Trade commitments in freight logistics create a drive toward efficient supply chains and improve market access for Australian exporters in the same way as does reducing tariffs or expanding quotas.”

Freight logistics services include the broad range of activities involved in supply chains, such as freight forwarding, cargo handling, storage, organisational activities, and transport, across the various transport modes. According to the World Bank, logistics costs are estimated to reach up to 20 per cent of total production costs in developed countries, while freight costs can account for 40 per cent of export values for certain landlocked developing countries. The value of taking a ‘whole-of-supply-chain’ approach has been recognised by Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Switzerland, and Taiwan who have signed onto the Australian initiative.

“A focus on specific transport modes or on particular facilities is no longer enough as a problem at one point can break the supply chain and mean lost market opportunities,” Mr Vaile said.

“Australia wants better access for our goods in international markets. The freight logistics initiative is a logical extension of the Australian Government and industry-endorsed Australian Logistics Industry Strategy, which seeks to improve the global competitiveness of the Australian freight transport and logistics industry.”

Supported by Australian industry, the freight logistics initiative launched in Geneva Saturday morning Australian time advocates the negotiation of legally-binding commitments under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Services trade negotiations are taking place as part of the Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations, along with negotiations on agriculture and industrial goods.

“The Government sees market access for international services trade as a critical source of growth for Australian services industries which account for four out of every five Australian jobs,” Mr Vaile

said.

World Trade Organization

– Membership – Cambodia

On 15 October 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release welcoming Cambodia’s WTO

membership. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

today welcomed Cambodia’s accession on 13 October to the World Trade Organisation.

“I congratulate Cambodia on becoming the 148th member of the WTO, almost ten years after it first applied to join. Cambodia becomes the second least-developed country to join the WTO through the accession process,” Mr Vaile said

“Cambodia’s membership of the WTO will enhance its capacity, as a least-developed country, to integrate more fully into the global economy and contribute to creating a more open trading environment”.

World Trade Organization

– Membership – Saudi Arabia

On 19 April 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, delivered a speech to the Arab-Australia Chamber of Commerce & Industry on Australian trade with the Middle East

. An extract from the speech follows:

Australia warmly welcomes Saudi Arabia’s recent and constructive efforts to accelerate its WTO accession and the new momentum in the negotiations.

Saudi Arabia

’s WTO membership will further expand bilateral trade opportunities and enhance the scope for Australia and Saudi Arabia to work together more closely to promote global trade liberalisation within the multilateral trade framework.

World Trade Organization

– Membership – Vietnam

On 8 June 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release concerning tariffs on wine imports. Extracts from the release follow:

Vietnam has agreed to reduce tariffs on Australian wine imports in line with tariff reductions given to imports of wine and spirits from the European Union, Trade Minister Mark Vaile

announced today.

…

“Australia will also continue to support Vietnam’s efforts to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Vietnam’s WTO membership will provide the best guarantee that all her trading partners will compete on an equal basis in the marketplace.”

Vietnam agreed in 2003 to reduce tariffs on European wines and spirits in two stages: from 100 per cent to 80 per cent in January 2004, and from 80 per cent to 70 per cent in January 2005. Vietnam’s agreement with the EU also eliminated minimum import pricing and additional duties on wines and spirits originating in the EU. These benefits will now be extended to Australian wine exporters.

On 30 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to Vietnam and the WTO.

Question

(1) What role is Australia playing in Vietnam’s efforts to join the WTO.

(2) What talks, if any, has Australia conducted or facilitated in relation to Vietnam’s application.

(3) What is Australia’s position regarding free trade in books, newspapers, music and intellectual property.

(4) What consideration is being given to human rights in relation to these negotiations.

An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

(1) Australia is involved in the meetings of the WTO Working Party on Vietnam’s accession and is engaged in bilateral market access negotiations with Vietnam. Australia also provides assistance to the process of trade liberalisation in Vietnam through the Vietnam-Australia Development Cooperation Strategy, including through training in trade related policy development and capacity building for public sector transparency and accountability.

(2) Australia participates in the meetings of the WTO Working Party on Vietnam’s accession, which first met in 1998, and also engages in bilateral market access negotiations with Vietnam.

(3) Australia supports the liberalisation of market access for books, newspapers and music. In relation to intellectual property, Australia actively supports the protection of intellectual property rights and promotes the effective and balanced implementation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

(4) Vietnam’s acceptance of and adherence to international human rights instruments and norms is not an element of Vietnam’s WTO accession. Australia maintains a vigorous dialogue with Vietnam on human rights issues, including through the annual Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Agriculture

On 20 February 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release concerning the Cairns Group and agriculture trade reform. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

departs for Costa Rica tomorrow to chair the 26th Ministerial Meeting of the Cairns Group of agricultural fair trading nations in San José, from 23-25 February.

“As a leading voice for agricultural reform since its formation in 1986, the Cairns Group has a central role to play in getting the agriculture negotiations back on track to deliver a strong outcome that meets the ambitious reform objectives set out in the Doha Declaration which launched WTO negotiations in 2001.

“We will discuss strategies to accelerate progress on agriculture and will look at ways to keep maximum pressure on all sides especially the major users of agricultural subsidies to work constructively for an outcome that delivers substantial improvements in market access, substantial cuts in domestic support and the phasing out of export subsidies. There have been some promising signs from the United States and the European Union on their commitment to moving forward in the agriculture negotiations and we must ensure that they deliver on this commitment.”

The Cairns Group will also meet with WTO Director General Supachai, US Trade representative Bob Zoellick, Mexican foreign minister Luis Derbez and Cairns Group Farm leaders during the talks in Costa Rica.

On 26 March 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release in relation to the WTO

world agricultural negotiations. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

today welcomed completion of the first week of resumed World Trade Organisation

negotiations on agricultural trade in Geneva.

“I welcome the broad commitment shown by WTO

members this week in Geneva to work to reach agreement on a framework text on agriculture by mid-year,” Mr Vaile

said.

The resumption of negotiations follows the disappointing outcome at the WTO

Ministerial Meeting in Cancun last September and subsequent efforts to restart the Doha Round.

“Australiais at the forefront of efforts to produce significant outcomes from the WTO

agriculture negotiations and we and the Cairns Group held an intensive round of consultations with key WTO Members this week in an effort to move forward the development of a framework,” Mr Vaile

said.

On 3 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of the Cairns Group to the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on international trade and development. Extracts from the statement follow:

I have the honour today to speak on behalf of the Cairns Group of agricultural trading countries, namely Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay.

…

The Cairns Group is pleased at the successful conclusion of the WTO July Framework Package which provides a crucial step forward in our quest for urgently-needed agricultural trade reform.

…

The framework breaks new ground by locking in a historic commitment by WTO members to eliminate, by a date certain, agricultural export subsidies, which have been so highly damaging to global farm exports and others’ domestic markets. It also foreshadows big cuts in the other farm subsidies provided by many wealthy countries. And it lays a good foundation for securing substantial improvements in market access for all products while taking into account developing countries’ special needs in this area.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – APEC

On 6 June 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release concerning APEC, free trade agreements and the WTO

. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

and other APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade (MRT) meeting in Pucón, Chile have issued a strong statement of support for moving the Doha Round of world trade negotiations forward. They also endorsed free trade agreements as a vehicle for achieving liberalisation in the Asia-Pacific.

“This MRT meeting sent a clear message that the Doha Round is our priority, but free trade agreements are very much part of APEC members’ trade policy arsenal and can play a valuable role in promoting broader liberalisation. This message from APEC ministers is a clear endorsement of the Government’s trade policy agenda”, Mr Vaile

said. “I was struck by the extent to which all APEC economies have embraced free trade agreements as a vehicle to trade and investment liberalisation.”

“APEC officials will develop a set of FTA best practice principles. There is great interest in APEC in Australia’s experience with FTAs and Ministers welcomed our offer to host workshops on FTA negotiations for APEC economies, to be conducted in Beijing and Brunei later this year.

On 19 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release regarding APEC and the WTO. An extract from the release follows:

Today’s endorsement by APEC ministers of the World Trade Organisation’s agreements to abolish all agricultural exports subsidies would help increase momentum in the Doha Round of trade negotiations, Trade Minister Mark Vaile

said.

Mr Vaile

said APEC ministers were also determined to achieve substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies and significant improvements in market access.

“We have also strongly endorsed calls for good results in services negotiations, and urged all WTO members to table their offers as soon as possible,” Mr Vaile

said.

“I am particularly pleased that trade facilitation is now firmly on the international trade agenda. APEC has for years been at the forefront of improvements in this area. APEC economies have set themselves concrete targets for bringing the cost of trade facilitation down, and this will immediately benefit business.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Development Agenda

On 2 July 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, delivered a speech to the Institute for International Business, Economics and Law, University of Adelaide, entitled “Challenges beyond Doha”. An extract from the speech follows:

In this context, I would like to discuss what I see as perhaps the major challenge before us… how the multilateral trading system can adjust to and manage the needs and expectations of developing countries, particularly when these vary considerably and may change over time as these countries develop.

As I have said, the majority of WTO members are now developing countries. More will join in the next decade.

…

We, and all WTO members, need to recognise and work with this diversity if we are to achieve results in future Rounds that are effective in supporting development, but at the same time are effective in delivering commitments and disciplines that are truly multilateral in scope, and fully integrate developing countries into the global trading system.

This is why we have supported appropriate special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries in the current negotiations, and the ongoing review of special and differential treatment provisions in the WTO agreements with a view to making them stronger and more precise, effective and operational.

But it is also why we do not support other potentially divisive proposals for blanket exemptions for some developing countries from further commitments, which are also opposed by several developing countries themselves.

…

I also believe that if greater leadership is displayed by some of the largest developed country protectionists and they make real commitments to further liberalisation, that this will be the single largest factor in encouraging developing countries to join them.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – WTO DOHA Round Framework Package

On 1 August 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release in relation to the WTO

DOHA Round Framework Package. An extract from the release follows:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

today warmly welcomed the agreement reached in Geneva early this morning on a framework to guide the final phase of the Doha Round of World Trade Organization

negotiations.

“This is a very important step forward for the WTO

. Australia has been working intensively with key trading partners to revive the Doha round since the setback in Cancun last year,” Mr Vaile

said. “A further failure would have had very serious implications for the world trading system and Australia’s interests.”

The framework agreement locks in the mandate for the Doha round and provides for detailed work to continue through the next year despite a change in administration in the European Commission and elections in the United States.

“This agreement means we have achieved a key Australian objective of keeping the Doha round moving forward so as to deal comprehensively with our global trade interests,” Mr Vaile

said.

…

The framework also opens the way for negotiation of new market opportunities in industrial products and services, and for new arrangements to reduce the costs of doing business.

“Australia will be pressing all sides to now move ahead quickly on these negotiations, and we will be working hard to ensure they deliver results that will benefit all Australian exporters,” Mr Vaile

said.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – General Agreement on Trade in Services

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, delivered a speech to the Australian Services Roundtable regarding GATS negotiations. An extract from the speech follows:

Market access negotiations on services – under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) – are an integral part of the Doha Round, alongside agriculture and industrials.

Australia is in a strong position to push these negotiations forward. Our own services sector is considerably more liberal and internationally competitive than that of many of our trading partners. And we are able to use this as a basis to seek new commitments in markets and sectors where there is significant potential and interest among our exporters.

So far in the WTO negotiations we have made requests of 35 WTO Members, including the US, EC, China, India and the ASEANs. These requests were framed after consultation with State and Territory Governments, industry associations and companies, non-government organisations, and the public. These requests include efforts to:

• improve the entry and temporary stay of Australian service suppliers in overseas markets;

• strengthen the ability of Australian service suppliers to invest overseas – including without having to form joint ventures;

• seek commitments to ensure regulatory environments are transparent to overseas suppliers – especially in the areas of licensing, qualification recognition and bidding processes for contracts.

While our objective in these negotiations is to get a better deal for our exporters, we will also defend our right to efficient regulation as well as to provide public services to the community. Australia is not, for example, making any offers in the areas of public health, public education, or the ownership of water.

…

Under the framework Members agreed that improved market access offers on services are to be lodged by May 2005. With only 48 initial offers of varying quality – covering 69 WTO Members – having been made as part of the services negotiations so far, we are looking for a substantial improvement prior to the May deadline, particularly from trading partners that have not come forward to date, such as Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa and Egypt.

The Government is currently consulting with interested stakeholders in order to develop an improved Australian offer and a further list of requests of others and we will continue to accord these WTO negotiations the highest priority.

World Trade Organization

– Multilateral Trade Negotiations – DOHA Round – Wine

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, delivered a speech to the Wine Industry Outlook Conference entitled “Emerging markets, new visions”. An extract from the speech follows:

The WTO

Doha Round of trade negotiations remains the government’s number one trade policy priority. These negotiations promise enormous gains for Australia and other WTO Members. For Australia’s wine industry the negotiations provide an opportunity to:

• address high wine tariffs still imposed by some countries in Asia and South America;

• put under pressure the high levels of domestic support provided to European Union wine makers – worth some $2 billion in 2002; and

• abolish EU wine-maker’s access to export subsidies which are in the order of $40 million per year.

World Trade Organization

– Negotiations – Australian Ambassador to the WTO Appointed Chairperson of Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) Review Negotiations

In February 2004, Australia’s Ambassador to the WTO

, Mr David Spencer, was appointed Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) review negotiations. In May 2004, Members agreed to extend these negotiations (which are not part of the Single Undertaking) beyond the 31 May 2004 deadline.

World Wine Trade Group

On 25 November 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, delivered a speech to the Wine Industry Outlook Conference entitled “Emerging markets, new visions”. An extract from the speech follows:

The World Wine Trade Group, comprising Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile and Argentina, has already tasted success by signing an agreement which provides that wine which is acceptable in the country of export, will be acceptable in the importing country. And the group is now working on other issues of great importance to facilitating wine exports, including how to reduce unnecessary and overlapping labelling requirements.

The objective is to allow our exporters to develop labels which can be accepted in all of the major wine markets of the world.

I have written to all State Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers to encourage support for this work of the World Wine Trade Group.

This approach will be further developed at the next meeting of the World Wine Trade Group to be held in New Zealand in March 2005.

VI. Individuals

Human Rights

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extracts are from Chapter 1: Australia and Human Rights – an Overview:

The protection of human rights to promote the dignity of the individual is too important a matter for symbolic gestures alone. It is only through the pursuit of practical and effective efforts to promote human rights that we show our real commitment to the welfare of individuals and society.

Australia has a long tradition of supporting human rights around the world, and was closely involved in the development of the international human rights system from the very beginning.

Australia contributed to the crucial negotiations on the United Nations Charter

to ensure that respect for human rights

was placed alongside peace, security and development as the primary objectives of the United Nations. We participated in the eight-member committee charged with drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR). Australia, through the then Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt, also presided over the General Assembly when the Declaration was adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

As exemplified by our contribution to the creation of the international human rights

system, and our history of support for human rights, Australia is solidly committed to making the fundamental principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration

a reality for all.

The UDHR

resulted from the world community’s strong desire after the devastation of World War II to set down clear guidelines for the proper treatment of human beings. With its adoption, the world community established ‘a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations’. Although the beliefs inscribed in the Universal Declaration were not invented 50 years ago by the committee tasked with its drafting-they are deeply rooted in all cultures and traditions-this was the first time in history that a document considered to have universal value was adopted by an international organisation with broad-based support.

The UDHR

remains a powerful instrument. Although not legally binding, it carries immense moral force. It is rightly regarded as the foundation of the international human rights

system. Its adoption prompted a sustained and intensive series of negotiations which saw the drafting and adoption of a set of international instruments which today form a significant body of international law. These include the two basic Covenants, on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights-which, together with the Universal Declaration, form the International Bill of Human Rights-as well as other international legal instruments dealing with freedom from torture and racial discrimination, and the rights of women and children.

The Government’s approach to pursuing its human rights objectives internationally is outlined in the White Paper on Australia’s foreign and trade policy-Advancing the National Interest. The Government views human rights as an inseparable part of Australia’s overall foreign policy approach, both because the treatment of individuals is of itself a matter of concern to Australians and because promoting and protecting human rights underpins Australia’s broader security and economic interests. The protection of human rights is a crucial aspect of good governance-a basic condition for stability and prosperity in all countries.

Our approach to human rights

has been consistently to reject the view that there exists a hierarchy or priority with respect to those rights embodied in the Universal Declaration

. In this context, the realisation of the right to development is an important item on the human rights agenda which exemplifies the current debate on the relative importance of some rights over others. Australia supports the concept of the right to development as we view this as a universal and inalienable right of individuals and peoples. Our support for the right to development is a natural corollary to our strong stand on the universality and indivisibility of all human rights-civil, political, economic, social and cultural. At the same time, we do not consider that the Declaration on the Right to Development should be accorded the same status as the Universal Declaration or the two International Covenants. While the Declaration makes an important contribution to the realisation of economic rights, it does not articulate the full range of human rights as the Universal Declaration and the combined Covenants do-rather it articulates certain rights already embodied in the International Bill as do other instruments dealing with specific aspects of human rights, such as racial discrimination, children and women.

On 20 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the election of an Australian to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

. An extract from the release follows:

I am pleased to announce that Australia has been elected as Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for 2004.

Our Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Mike Smith, who was a Vice-Chair of the Commission in 2003, will fill this important role.

Australia has a long-standing commitment to protecting and promoting human rights around the world. We work for practical improvements through a combination of measures, including constructive bilateral dialogues, focused technical assistance to improve governance and participation in multilateral efforts to develop and promote international human rights standards.

The Commission draws global attention to human rights abuses, debates and promotes human rights norms, and directs and supports the efforts of related international bodies and mechanisms including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the various Special Rapporteurs who promote human rights universally.

In addition to the important work carried out by the Commission in Geneva, at the national level it is often national human rights institutions that are responsible for enhancing public awareness of human rights and investigating cases of abuse. As Commission Chair, Australia will work to increase the Commission’s awareness of, and support for, this critical in-country work by promoting the importance of strong and independent national human rights institutions.

Over the past few years, Australia has worked hard to strengthen and improve the operation of the United Nations human rights machinery. The major focus of this work has been the Government’s treaty body reform initiative announced in 2000. Australia has already hosted three workshops in Geneva to promote treaty body reform.

As Commission Chair, we will continue to promote focused and effective consideration of human rights issues in the Commission, to ensure the organisation remains relevant and responsive to global demands for better observance of human rights standards.

On 12 September 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding the election of an Australian to the United Nations Human Rights Committee

. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly congratulate Professor Ivan Shearer AM on his successful re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Committee

(HRC) in New York on 9 September.

His re-election follows Australia’s election as Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

in January this year.

Australia is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights around the world, and believes the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, especially the HRC, play a key role in upholding these rights. As Chair of the Commission on Human Rights

, Australia strives to improve and strengthen the operation of the UN’s human rights machinery, and promote focused and effective consideration of human rights issues.

…

The HRC is composed of 18 members elected by the 152 states parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR). It examines reports from states parties to the ICCPR on the human rights

situation in their countries, and also individual complaints under the First Optional Protocol

to the ICCPR. Professor Shearer will serve a second four-year term on the Committee, commencing in 2005.

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, Mr Tim Caughley

, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, on behalf of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights in response to the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights. An extract from the statement follows:

The Report of the High Commissioner places before all of us a number of challenges. We agree that the world faces serious challenges which demand collective action and collective engagement. The foundation of our response must be a recommitment to the International Bill of Human Rights. But, ultimately, States must deliver on human rights and the clear evidence is that too many are failing in this global imperative.

New Zealand, Australia and Canada have worked jointly to support the initiatives proposed by the Secretary-General in his report Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change (A/57/387 and Corr.1). Human rights, including the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OHCHR, are fundamentally intertwined with the goals and objectives of the United Nations. National protection systems are an essential element of fulfilling these goals and objectives. We welcome initiatives to place more emphasis of the role of UN country teams in capacity-building, and have read with interest the responses received from States as to their own domestic mechanisms.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the global human rights

situation. Extracts from the statement follow:

It is deeply regrettable that after years of effort to promote human rights

, there is not one region of our world that is free from serious human rights violations. In the spirit of constructive dialogue, and a desire to help ordinary people, Australia will continue to speak out against the treatment of those who do not enjoy the protection of robust democracy, of good governance, of a free press, of a strong civil society, and of the basic protections laid out in the human rights covenants. We will also continue to commend and encourage those countries which have made genuine progress in protecting the human rights of their peoples.

We focus our statement today on certain country situations of great concern to Australians. We acknowledge progress where this has been made. We draw particular attention to the plight of women, children and minorities, who often through the circumstances of their birth, have their lives or futures destroyed. We raise situations where the application of good governance could save lives, and foster freedom, development and a brighter future, and where the establishment of truly independent national human rights

institutions would assist governments in protecting the human rights of their own citizens.

…

In concluding, Mr Chairman, let me take this opportunity to reaffirm Australia’s commitment to working constructively with the United Nationsand with all governments to bring about real improvements in human rights for all peoples.

Human Rights – Anti-Semitism

On 17 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release condemning anti-semitism. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome yesterday’s private member’s motion on anti-Semitism in the House of Representatives.

The Australian Government unreservedly condemns the rise of anti-Semitism in all its forms.

The resurgence of this age-old prejudice is deeply troubling. I am especially concerned by the rise of anti-Semitism among extremist elements in the Islamic world who have adopted anti-Semitic ideas and a false version of Muslim history in their efforts to foment division and hatred.

Sadly, Australia is not immune to this scourge and we need to be vigilant to ensure that these ideas never take hold in our community.

The Australian Government strongly opposes all forms of racial and religious intolerance.

Australia has firmly opposed the proliferation of one-sided anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations, just as we have consistently supported resolutions calling for the elimination of all forms of intolerance.

Through its global public diplomacy program, the Government actively promotes the Australian values of multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance.

Australia’s Jewish community has made a significant contribution to promoting these values and we are proud both of this community and of our abiding friendship with Israel.

On 24 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release praising United Nations action on anti-semitism. An extract from the release follows:

I commend the United Nations

for convening a conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism in New York on 21 June.

The Australian Government has been dismayed by recent signs of increased anti-Semitism around the world. Anti-Semitism in any form is unacceptable, in Australia or anywhere else. We will condemn it whenever and wherever it appears.

Our deeply held Australian values of tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism must be respected and nurtured so that bitterness and resentment of others do not spread in our communities.

Australian life and society have been enriched and strengthened by our Jewish community which has contributed in a multitude of ways to enhanced tolerance and social cohesion.

I salute UN Secretary General Annan’s initiative in calling this conference. I welcome his wise words of introduction – that in the face of the recent rise of anti-Semitism “this time the world must not, cannot, be silent”. I urge other world leaders to take up this challenge and join us in condemning every form of this corrosive racism.

Human Rights – Bilateral Dialogue

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extracts are from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Bilateral objectives

The standards set out in the UDHR

have an application that transcends national borders. Pursuing these standards is a responsibility of all countries and a legitimate subject for international scrutiny. Australia does not accept the argument that the treatment of human rights

constitutes an ‘internal affair’ for any country. Equally, in our bilateral dealings, we do not presume to hold other nations to standards that we do not apply to ourselves.

The Government recognises that, on occasion, support for human rights

will create difficulties in Australia’s bilateral relationships. The best means of managing such difficulties is generally to address human rights concerns in the context of a sound overall bilateral relationship through dialogue, and, as appropriate, by offering practical assistance to these countries to improve the human rights situation on the ground. Constructive dialogue can be expected, in most cases, to hold out the best prospect of promoting positive change. That said, we conduct such dialogue without prejudice to national statements or Australia’s positions on human rights issues in international forums.

Dialogue can take place at the highest political level, involving Heads of State, at Ministerial level or between officials-such as the formal dialogues we have at senior officials’ level with China, Vietnam and Iran (see below). There are also informal contacts between staff at Australian Embassies and relevant officials in countries of accreditation. These contacts often support, and are supported by, technical assistance and other links at governmental and non-governmental levels, through which promotion and protection of human rights

can be advanced.

In addition to dialogue, the Government gives priority in its bilateral approaches to practical efforts that can directly improve the wellbeing of the individual. These include development cooperation programs, assistance in establishing and maintaining national human rights

machinery, and work to develop and strengthen the effectiveness of regional and international human rights institutions and instruments.

This work is mostly undertaken through Australia’s development cooperation program, managed by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), in conjunction with developing country governments. In the development cooperation program, AusAID seeks to address the linkages between governance, poverty reduction, sustainable development, and the promotion and protection of human rights

in Australia’s partner countries.

Australia’s bilateral human rights

dialogues

Australia’s bilateral approach to promoting human rights

includes three formal dialogues with the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam and Iran. These mechanisms have enabled the Australian Government to convey its specific concerns to the countries concerned on a wide range of issues and, where possible, to provide technical assistance aimed at strengthening capacity to promote and protect human rights.

These dialogues represent a substantial development in Australia’s relationship with China, Vietnam and Iran and in Australia’s ability to contribute in a concrete way to improvements in their human rights

situations. The wide-ranging discussions-especially those with agencies directly responsible for policy and programs in areas affecting human rights-ensure that the focus is firmly on the realisation of practical improvements in human rights.

…

Other human rights

representations

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade monitors human rights situations worldwide using its network of diplomatic missions and drawing on information provided by a number of other sources, NGOs, researchers, academics and the wider community.

…

It is the Government’s policy to take up individual human rights

cases which are brought to its attention when it is satisfied that there are valid grounds for inquiry. Cases are brought to the department’s attention by our overseas posts, media reports or concerned members of the public; many cases are the result of an arrangement whereby Amnesty International ‘Urgent Action’ cases are pursued by the department on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group.

Representations are normally made through the Australian diplomatic mission in, or accredited to, the country concerned, as this is considered the most effective channel to register Australian views with the relevant authorities. Posts have some discretion on how they pursue human rights

cases. In the first instance, however, they seek to verify the facts of the case, after which the Post would raise Australia’s human rights concerns in a way in which it considers would be most effective. In exceptional cases, representations are made by the department to diplomatic representatives in Canberra. Ministers also raise individual cases and wider human rights concerns in meetings with senior foreign government representatives abroad and in Australia.

Action is not initiated in cases where to do so would not be beneficial to the individual(s) concerned. It is not always possible to know whether a representation has produced a result, nor to suggest that an outcome is the result of any one representation. Where improvements in human rights

situations can in part be attributed to representations it is usually the cumulative result of action by a number of countries, such as Australia, which pursue human rights issues vigorously.

Human Rights – Children

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, Mr Paul Meyer

, Canada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations for Disarmament in Geneva, on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning the rights of the child. Extracts from the statement follow:

Our three countries are committed to enhancing the promotion and protection of the rights of children, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

is our guide. Our actions go beyond those specifically targeted at children, to include mainstreaming their rights within other activities, at the national, regional and international levels. We also endorse incorporation of a gender perspective in all programmes and policies related to children.

We support the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and call on all States Parties to cooperate with it. The work of the Committee is key to promoting more effective implementation of the Convention and its Optional Protocol

s.

Our countries support efforts to strengthen monitoring, reporting and accountability for violations of children’s rights in armed conflicts. We encourage close co-ordination with existing initiatives, such as those related to the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We recognize and support the work of UN agencies and NGO partners, including the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict and his office. Their efforts remain essential to combating violations of children’s rights and ensuring adherence to relevant international law. In this regard, we encourage those member states that have not done so to ratify the Optional Protocol

on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts. The Rome Statute

of the International Criminal Court contains crucial provisions criminalizing serious acts against children and we call upon States to ratify this instrument without delay.

The unimaginable suffering of children who continue to be the victims of sexual exploitation, including children being trafficked, can only be effectively addressed by collective action on the part of the world’s states. We welcome the entry into force of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, as well as the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. As well, our countries support the Optional Protocol

to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on the Sale of Children, Child Pornography and Child Prostitution. Measures must be taken at all levels to combat such crimes, starting with action to address the problem of demand.

…

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

recognizes the fundamental right of young people to participate in decision-making that affects them and requires states to ensure that their opinions are given “due weight” according to their age and maturity. We would thus encourage States that are in the process of developing their national plan of actions as follow-up to the Special Session to take children’s views into consideration on all issues that concern them. Just as we benefited from their meaningful participation in the Special Session, we believe their input in the current exercise is critical in ensuring a multi-sectoral, child-centred framework for children for the coming decade.

…

Development of Australia’s national plan of action of A World Fit for Children is progressing well. Currently, work is focusing on the most effective ways to consult children and young people, and non-governmental organisations on the priority areas of A World Fit for Children, in order to incorporate their views into the plan. The Australian government has identified supporting early childhood as one of its important priorities. A key initiative Australia is taking in this area is the development of a National Agenda for Early Childhood, which will give direction for a whole of government approach for future investment in early childhood. The Australian government also supports a wide range of services and programs encouraging increased social and economic participation and supporting young people in their transition to independence.

…

While at the Special Session we took satisfaction at the progress made in the last dozen years, we were also reminded of the enormous challenges ahead to complete our unfinished agenda. Indeed, chronic poverty remains a major impediment to realizing the rights of children. As well, far too many children are still victims of discrimination, many of them girls. Internationally, we must all work together, in cooperation with UNICEF and civil society, to address these issues.

…

Australia’s aid program supports improved governance, in particular strengthening law and justice, human rights, democratic institutions and developing civil society, which contributes to an environment where child exploitation is less likely to occur. Australia also supports a range of activities to combat child exploitation in partner countries.

We consider it crucial that all relevant organs of the UN system systematically mainstream child rights throughout all their activities and adopt a strong child rights approach. Our countries look forward to continuing to work with UNICEF and other concerned UN bodies and countries to develop and implement further effective measures to improve the situation of children.

Human Rights – Children – Armed Conflict

On 22 June 2004, the Optional Protocol

to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, done at New York on 25 May 2000, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The Optional Protocol

strengthens the protections contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child

(which we have ratified). Most importantly, it obliges States Parties to take all feasible measures to ensure members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

…

Ratification will signal our strong support and continuing commitment to the promotion and protection of child rights in this area and also to the broader objectives of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

.

…

While child soldiers are not an issue domestically, the recruitment and use of persons under 18 as soldiers remains a serious problem for the international community. UNICEF estimates that 300,000 child soldiers are involved in more than 30 conflicts worldwide. The use of child soldiers in numerous conflicts in the Asia Pacific has obvious negative implications for social cohesion, economic prospects and stability in the region. However, many states throughout the Asia Pacific have yet to ratify the Optional Protocol

. Should Australia ratify the Optional Protocol, our ability to encourage states which have not yet acceded to it to become parties would be enhanced. Being in a stronger position to encourage such measures by regional states is in our interests as it can be expected to help promote regional stability.

Ratifying the Optional Protocol

would oblige Australia to take all feasible measures to ensure that members of our armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities (Article 1). Australia would also be obliged to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into our armed forces (Article 2).

…

Ratifying the Optional Protocol

would also strengthen Australia’s obligation under the Convention to refrain from voluntarily recruiting persons who have not attained the age of 15 years into our armed forces. States ratifying the Protocol are obliged to raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment above that set in the Convention (Article 3(1)) and to deposit a binding declaration upon ratification specifying the minimum age for voluntary recruitment (in Australia, 16 years of age), and describing safeguards adopted to ensure such recruitment is not forced or coerced (Article 3(2)).

…

The Optional Protocol

also addresses the involvement of children in armed groups which are distinct from those of the State. Although the Protocol cannot place obligations directly upon such groups, it does provide that they should not recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years (Article 4(1)). Ratifying the Protocol would oblige Australia, however, to take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment or use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalise such practices (Article 4(2)).

…

To allow the Committee on the Rights of the Child to monitor the implementation of the Protocol, should Australia ratify, we would be obliged to submit within two years after the Protocol’s entry into force for Australia comprehensive information to the Committee on the measures we had taken to implement the Protocol’s provisions (Article 8(1)).

Human Rights – Good Governance

During the 8th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum, Kathmandu, Nepal, on 16-18 February 2004, Australia delivered a statement on the importance of good governance. An extract from the statement follows:

This meeting and its major theme – The Rule of Law in Countering Terrorism – is timely. As recent events have shown – from the deplorable assassination of Sergio Vieira de Mello to bombing outrages in Indonesia – we cannot falter in meeting the threat terrorism poses to our shared democratic way of life.

Australia is committed to working with our regional partners to articulate a common and appropriate response. This has been evidenced by the recent memoranda of understanding on terrorism we have signed with India, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Fiji, the Philippines and Cambodia. The landmark Bali Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism (February 2004) co-chaired by Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer

made good progress in transforming political commitment into concrete actions.

Within our borders too, we have taken decisive action by implementing an extensive range of legislative and administrative responses to the new security environment. The active contribution of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission to policy discussions has been a good example, I believe, of the vital role played by strong and independent national institutions in striking the right policy outcome of bolstering security while respecting human rights.

At the same time that we address immediate challenges, it is imperative that we enhance the foundations upon which human rights are built. Through our development assistance, Australia is committed to encouraging good governance throughout the Region.

Governance is the largest sectoral element of Australia’s development assistance program ($370m in 2003-04). This investment has helped our neighbours improve economic and financial management, strengthen public sector institutions, strengthen democratic systems and entrench the rule of law.

As President of the 60th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Australiawill seek to promote a focused, responsive and efficient UN human rights system in which the fundamental importance of good governance and strong national institutions is recognised and supported. At the Commission, we will emphasise practical initiatives that result in improved human rights on the ground – exactly the sort of work that the AFP focuses on.

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr Peter Heyward, Head of the Australian Delegation, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning good governance and human rights. An extract from the statement follows:

We take the floor today to focus on the importance of good governance in the achievement of human rights

. We do this as one of the five cross regional sponsors of the resolution on good governance, supported unanimously in this Commission over the past three years.

The quality of governance at the national level has a profound impact on the enjoyment of human rights

. People cannot truly enjoy the many human rights that we have painstakingly elaborated at the international level without the capacity to enforce them through effective, independent institutions. International treaties are meaningless in societies where there is a culture of violence, fear and impunity and where the rule of law has no currency. Citizens are powerless when they are denied a voice through the ballot box and cannot speak their minds or practise their religions.

It is through good governance, and the building of the institutions that are necessary for this, that States create an environment where civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights will flourish.

…

Australia works hard to promote good governance through the Australian aid program, which supports practical and achievable good governance and human rights

outcomes. Development and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Improved governance occurs when Governments invest in strong institutions and enabling frameworks. Australia has increasingly focused its development cooperation on the key areas of law and order, economic governance and service delivery.

Australia is working with its Pacific island neighbours, and others in our region, to improve systems of governance and promote the observance of human rights

. A prominent example in the Pacific region is the Australian-led assistance in Solomon Islands.

The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI

) was formed at the request of the Solomon Islands government and to date has involved the participation of police, military and civilians from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Nauru and Cook Islands. In the eight months since its deployment, RAMSI has re-established law and order, stabilised the budget and devised long term strategies to improve the system of governance and bring about targeted, economic reform.

RAMSI

will continue to encourage the development of good governance in the Solomon Islands

by assisting the government to rebuild institutions, restore services to the community, strengthen accountability institutions and bolster civil society organisations and non-government bodies.

The strengthening of democratic processes facilitates and encourages the observance of human rights

. Australia has given support to electoral processes in East Timor, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, as well as to other countries in the region such as Indonesia and Cambodia. Australia is cooperating with countries in our region to strengthen their legal institutions by providing support for legal reform programs in Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga, and Papua New Guinea.

Australia is also working to build the law and order capabilities of the Pacific on a regional basis. The Pacific Regional Policing Initiative will improve the training capabilities and professional standards of regional police forces and encourage awareness of the importance of human rights

.

Australia’s fundamental approach to promoting human rights

internationally is founded on the belief that constructive, cooperative dialogue, linked to practical technical assistance, is the most effective way of bringing about real changes to the lives of people. Through the open exchange of ideas and information that dialogue facilitates, Australia seeks to promote the development of accountable and transparent political, judicial, and other institutions. Australia currently has three formal human rights dialogues – with China, Vietnam and Iran – and also engages other countries within our region on human rights.

Australia has also been actively supporting human rights

and good governance through the United Nations. We have provided financial support for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue work on establishing and promoting national human rights institutions in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will continue to sponsor resolutions, both here at CHR and at UNGA, emphasising the need for transparent, participatory and accountable governments, responsive to the needs and aspirations of their people, as the foundation on which good governance rests.

Around the world, governments and people alike are increasingly realising that the quality of governance has a profound impact on the enjoyment of all human rights. During our sombre reflection on the 10th Anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, the distinguished Minister from Rwanda pointed to the key role that bad governance played in allowing this incomprehensible tragedy to occur.

Better governance can improve the lives of millions and make human rights a reality. This will continue to be a core priority for Australia both nationally and in our joint efforts with others in our region and beyond.

Human Rights – Indigenous Peoples

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, Mr Peter Heyward, Head of the Australian Delegation, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights in relation to indigenous issues. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia welcomes the opportunity to address the Sixtieth Session of the Commission on Human Rights

on the activities of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People.

We support efforts to better recognise, protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world and believe that the International Decade and the Permanent Forum are important means to this end.

After only two meetings, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has settled into its role and is successfully implementing its mandate of coordinating UN activity on Indigenous issues, and ensuring that the interests of Indigenous peoples are integrated into the broader UN agenda. This is a considerable achievement. In years to come, the Permanent Forum may be viewed as one of the significant achievements for indigenous peoples rights coming out of the Indigenous Decade.

Australia welcomes the work to date of the Permanent Forum, not only in the mandated areas of Economic and Social Development, Environment, Health, Human Rights, Culture and Education but also under the special themes considered by each Permanent Forum including Indigenous Children and Youth.

…

Australia’s support for the activities of the Indigenous Decade is based on our strong interest in ensuring member states, and the UN, protect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples. At the same time, we firmly believe that all UN mechanisms, including those dealing with Indigenous issues, need to be effective and efficient. This belief is at the basis of our efforts towards UN reform.

In this context, we remain concerned with the clear overlap between various existing UN bodies dealing with Indigenous issues. We support the review of UN Indigenous mechanisms with a view to rationalising activities, avoiding duplication and promoting effectiveness. We are disappointed that the Review of Indigenous Mechanisms was not carried out last year and look forward to ECOSOC’s consideration of the Review this year. We seek concrete recommendations from the Review which will prompt inter-governmental discussions on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of UN mechanisms dealing with Indigenous issues.

Another key focus of the Decade has been the elaboration of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DDRIP). Australia

is committed to developing an agreed international articulation of the rights of Indigenous peoples by the end of the Indigenous Decade and recognises the critical importance accorded by many of the world’s Indigenous peoples to this process.

However, we recognise that many states have expressed concerns about significant parts of the DDRIP text as drafted by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP). Some of them, including Australia, have proposed alternative language in an effort to find agreement. However, it appears unlikely that the current text will achieve consensus this year. In that event, the Commission may need to revisit the objective and the process at its next session.

…

Australia is a culturally diverse and tolerant society. Our society is founded upon mutual respect and compassion and a commitment to the active promotion and protection of human rights

for all. And yet, Indigenous disadvantage is a reality in Australia as in many other states. We urge all states to work in partnership with their Indigenous peoples to contribute to efforts, in the context of the Indigenous Decade, to promote and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and resolve the problems common to Indigenous peoples around the world.

Human Rights – Indigenous Peoples – Indigenous Women

On 10 May 2004, Ms Shirley McPherson, Chairperson of the Indigenous Land Corporation, delivered a statement to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, on behalf of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, regarding indigenous women

. Extracts from the statement follow:

The special theme of this, the third session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, is devoted to Indigenous Women, and was prompted by a recognition of the significant contributions made by those women

to their communities and of the special challenges that they face. As an Indigenous Australian woman it gives me great pleasure to address the forum on behalf of the Australian government.

We wish to address the question of the rights of Indigenous girls and the relationship between traditional cultural practices and human rights

. This is indeed a landscape of risk (to use the Chairman’s words) for many Indigenous girls. The landscape is threatening. Many Indigenous girls are caught between their own culture and the non-Indigenous world. Their rights must be protected and guaranteed.

…

The question for the Permanent Forum is to identify ways in which the United Nations

“system” can better address the needs of Indigenous women

.

One such area is the plight of girls who are expected to become wives in early marriages. There is no room to fudge basic human rights

issues in deference to outdated traditional cultural practices. Recently in Australia we had a case of a man in his 50s attempting to use traditional law as a defence for having sexual relations with a 15-year old girl who was his “promised” wife. Fortunately the higher courts rejected this argument and subsequent legislation has now put the matter beyond doubt.

Indigenous girls now have the same legal protection as other girls.

If we are really here today to take seriously the fundamental human rights

of Indigenous girls who will eventually become the Indigenous women of tomorrow, we cannot compromise on this critical issue, or any other breach of human rights in the name of traditional practice. Any Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must enshrine child protection and reject those traditional practices that are harmful. I therefore call upon this Forum, in its coordinating role, to request the Working Group to address this issue.

Human Rights – International Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities

On 6 January 2004, the Attorney-General

, Mr Philip Ruddock

, and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kay Patterson

, issued a joint press release concerning the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. An extract from the release follows:

Attorney-General

Philip Ruddock

and Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kay Patterson

, today announced Australia has provided a written contribution for inclusion in a draft text for negotiation of a Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

Australia’s written contribution focuses on accessibility – stressing the importance of taking appropriate measures to provide an environment which enables people with disabilities to access their fundamental human rights

.

A UN working group, established by the United Nations

Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities is currently meeting in New York to prepare this text, to be negotiated by UN member states.

Australia’s continuing participation in this important process demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working towards ensuring participation of people with disabilities in all levels of society.

On 13 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, the Attorney-General

, Mr Philip Ruddock

, and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kay Patterson

, issued a joint press release in relation to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. An extract from the release follows:

Australia will send a delegation to help negotiate the text of an international convention on the rights and dignity of people with disabilities.

The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee set up to develop proposals for such a convention will meet in New York in late May and again in late August 2004.

The Australian Government is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities. Australia will be working at the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that a new convention affirms the fundamental human rights of people with disabilities and improves their ability to access those rights.

Australia’s approach will be to focus on accessibility – stressing the importance of taking appropriate measures to provide an environment which enables people with disabilities.

We are very pleased that a member of the disability community and a representative of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

will join Government representatives on the Australian delegation to the Ad Hoc Committee. This will ensure that the views of Australians with disabilities are included in deliberations.

Wide consultation with stakeholders including human rights, disability, legal and business groups, and States and Territories has informed the Government’s on-going position on this valuable work.

Australia’s practical engagement with this important process demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society.

On 26 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Attorney-General

, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a joint press release regarding Australia’s co-sponsoring of a United Nations resolution on disabilities. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government has joined in sponsoring a United Nations General Assembly resolution on the development of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

Co-sponsoring the resolution affirms Australia’s commitment to the development of this convention, and to ensuring it genuinely advances the circumstances of people with disabilities.

We recognise that people with disabilities remain one of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups throughout the world.

The new convention should operate to ensure that people with disabilities can effectively access and exercise their existing human rights

by removing barriers and promoting full participation and inclusion in society.

Co-sponsoring the resolution is one way of marking the International Day of Disabled Persons on 3 December. This year the Day will focus on involving people with disability in planning the strategies and policies that affect them. This year’s motto ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ means the day will focus on involving people with disability in planning the strategies and policies that affect them.

An Australian delegation has attended all meetings of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee negotiating the text of the convention. The delegation has included a member of the disability sector and a representative of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

as well as relevant Australian Government Departments.

Human Rights – National Framework for Human Rights

On 22 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Attorney-General

, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a joint press release on the new Australian Framework for Human Rights. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government has finalised a new framework for the protection of human rights

in Australia that demonstrates our forward-looking approach to human rights protection.

The announcement of the new National Framework for Human Rights – National Action Plan reflects the Government’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

where all governments recognised that all people enjoyed certain inalienable rights, regardless of gender, age, race, religious belief, or political affiliation.

In 1993 Australia proposed the creation of National Action Plans on Human Rights and in 1994 was the first State to produce a plan. A decade on, the new framework outlines the Government’s broad strategy for enhancing the enjoyment of human rights

in Australia in the future.

Australia has always played a lead role in the creation and enforcement of human rights

standards, and the development of a new Framework will ensure this role continues.

It is especially fitting that the announcement occurs in the year when Australia has, for the first time, occupied the position of Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

.

The Framework will demonstrate Australia’s on-going commitment to international human rights instruments, as well as our continuing support for peoples in other countries to achieve higher standards of human rights.

Australiawas one of eight countries which drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

56 years ago and we remain strong supporters of the international human rights

framework. Our human rights credentials are widely recognised and we are proud of our record of practical achievement in human rights, both domestically and internationally.”

State and Territory Governments, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

, and non-Government organisations were consulted in the preparation of the new National Framework.

Human Rights – Refugees

On 30 July 2004, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone

, issued a press release in relation to Australia’s humanitarian program. An extract from the release follows:

The Government’s success in securing Australia’s borders has meant that our humanitarian program is helping more of those most in need of resettlement in Australia, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone

said today.

‘13 851 humanitarian visas were granted in 2003-04, the largest number in eight years,’ the Minister said.

‘The most pleasing aspect of this increased intake was that we were able to help more people escape refugee

situations in places like Sudan

, with eighty five per cent of the program coming from offshore.

‘Australia has granted 14 442 humanitarian visas to Sudanese in the last ten years, almost 10 000 of these in the last two years.

‘The Government has been able to increase its long term commitment to dealing with refugee

situation because our border control policies have put a stop to unauthorised boat arrivals.

‘Australia works closely with the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees

in determining resettlement priorities. Our commitment to helping people escape often horrendous conditions in Africa will continue this year.’

‘It is not a widely know fact that Australia has such a generous Refugee and Humanitarian program. In fact, Australia will spend, across Government, about $2 billion over the next four years on this Program.

‘It is the first time for some years that the program has been fully utilised, with no carry over.’

Human Rights – Refugees – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in the Management of Asylum Seekers and Related Issues – Nauru

On 14 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to Australian assistance for Nauru’s health services. An extract from the release follows:

I am pleased to announce that Australia will provide assistance to strengthen Nauru’s health services capacity to respond to medical contingencies at the Offshore Processing Centre (OPC).

This follows meetings this week in Nauru

between a delegation of senior Australian officials and Nauru’s Acting President, Derog Gioura, and key government of Nauru officials including the director of Nauru’s health services Dr Kieren Keke.

The package of measures could include: supplementation of medical and nursing staff; provision of additional emergency services equipment and supplies; further support for the improvement of the hospital infrastructure, including additional ward capacity for emergency situations; and further training to enhance emergency care.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding Between Australia and Nauru

for Cooperation in the Management of Asylum Seekers and related Issues, Australia is committed to provide assistance to improve Nauru’s health services, which benefits the local population, as well as Nauru’s capacity to provide medical services to the OPC residents when needed.

On 5 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the Memorandum of Understanding with Nauru

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia has signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nauru

that will help address Nauru’s longer-term challenges alongside the management of the Offshore Processing Centre.

The MOU is effective until June 2005 and signals an increased level of cooperation between the two countries.

As part of the MOU, Australia has committed an additional $22.5 million in development assistance to help Nauru

stabilise the country’s economy and strengthen law and order.

In keeping with the Australian Government’s focus on good governance in the Pacific, Australia was pleased to respond positively to Nauru’s request for additional assistance including the placement of a number of Australian officials in key in-line areas.

Australia will provide an in-line Secretary of Finance and, subject to a scoping study, a Police Commissioner as key measures to address Nauru’s most serious and immediate challenges.

The Secretary of Finance will be looking at issues including reforms to Nauru’s budget processes, exploring new revenue sources, improving revenue collection, and seeking better value for money on all government sector expenditure and activities.

Nauru’s remaining assets and liabilities will also be assessed before the commencement of an appropriate re-structure is undertaken.

On 19 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding Australian assistance for Nauru

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia and Nauru

have agreed on a treaty to cover Australian officials deploying to Nauru as part of our development assistance package.

Agreement was reached today in my meeting with Nauru’s President, His Excellency Rene Harris in Melbourne. The treaty will enable extra assistance to go ahead as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on 25 February.

In response to Nauru’s requests, a team of officials will soon be ready to deploy to Nauru

under our new $22.5 million assistance package. A top priority for our officials will be to audit and assess Nauru’s remaining assets and liabilities before helping Nauru with an appropriate re-structure. We will also help Nauru implement long-lasting financial management and law and justice reforms.

The agreement between Australia and Nauru

on a treaty to provide those officials with appropriate powers and immunities is vitally important. It enables Nauru to receive the assistance it requires to enact the reforms it urgently desires.

I would like to reinforce Australia’s continuing commitment to working cooperatively with Nauru

in addressing its long-term challenges alongside the management of the Offshore Processing Centres.

Human Rights – Situations – Bangladesh

On 3 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to human rights

in Bangladesh

. Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

(1) My department is aware of claims of human rights abuses in Bangladesh

. It is not evident that there is a degree of government tolerance of violence towards minorities and the non-government organisation sector.

…

(3) The Australian High Commission in Dhaka has made a number of representations to the Bangladesh

government on human rights

issues including the rights of minorities.

Human Rights – Situations – Burma

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights

in Burma

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is very concerned about the lack of progress on human rights, national reconciliation and political reform in Burma

. We call upon the Burmese government to immediately and unconditionally release all political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi. The restrictions on citizens’ freedom of association, assembly and expression should also be lifted. We encourage the Burmese government to make tangible progress on its “roadmap for democracy”. Australia supports the work of the UN Special Envoy, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, and urges the Burmese government to eliminate forced labour and the use of child soldiers.

On 31 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release marking the first anniversary of Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention. An extract from the release follows:

It is now 12 months since the Secretary General

of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, was detained in Burma

where she remains under house detention.

The Australian Government believes there is no justification for Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued detention and we again call for her immediate and unconditional release. We also continue to urge the Burmese

government to release the NLD vice chairman, Tin Oo, and all remaining political prisoners.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s release is a pre-requisite for national reconciliation in Burma

as outlined in its roadmap to democracy. The National Convention to draft a constitution, now under way in Burma, has lost its credibility because it has neither broad participation nor open debate. It is up to the Burmese Government to create a climate giving all parties confidence about their participation in the National Convention.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in Burma

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia is deeply concerned about the lack of progress towards improving human rights

in Burma

. We call on the Burmese government to take concrete steps to implement its roadmap to democracy, with priority for broad participation and open debate in the National Convention to draft a new constitution. We renew our call for the lifting of restrictions on freedom of association, expression and assembly, for the release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, and for the elimination of forced labour and use of child soldiers. Australia continues to support the work of the Special Envoy, Tan Sri Razali Ismail.

Human Rights – Situations – Cambodia

On 20 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming the new Cambodian government. An extract from the release follows:

Australia welcomes the formation of a new Government in Cambodia on 15 July. This comes after a lengthy period of negotiation, following national elections in July 2003, to satisfy the constitutional requirement to secure a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.

I note Prime Minister Hun Sen’s commitment of 6 July to make legislation to establish a Khmer Rouge Tribunal a top priority for the new Cambodian Government. Australia was the first country to make a funding commitment to the UN fund to support the tribunal and has recently doubled its financial commitment to $3 million over three years.

I urge the Government to fulfil its commitment to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal quickly and pass other key legislation pending for the last 12 months such as WTO accession and legal and judicial reform packages.

Australia and Cambodia

will continue to cooperate strongly on transnational crime issues including the trafficking of women

and children, people smuggling, and counter-terrorism

.

Australia is strongly committed to working with Cambodia

to strengthen the rule of law in the country. This is a key objective of our development cooperation program which is expected to total $41.4 million in 2004-05. A fair and transparent judicial system is essential to strengthen community confidence in democracy and the rule of law. It is also a vital ingredient of the business climate needed to attract investors and deliver economic growth to underpin future prosperity.

Human Rights – Situations – China

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extract is from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Australia-China

Human Rights Dialogue

Hosting of the dialogue alternates between China

and Australia. The first round of dialogue was held in Beijing in August 1997. The seventh round of dialogue was held in Beijing in July 2003.

The dialogue covers domestic, regional and international human rights issues. Australian concerns which have been raised include: restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, association, expression, and religion; the human rights situation in Tibet

and Xinjiang, and that affecting other ethnic and religious minorities within China

including Falun Gong; the treatment of dissidents; legal reform; the use of the death penalty; the use of torture and other degrading practices; and reports of coercion in the implementation of China’s family planning policies.

The Australia-China

Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program was jointly agreed to at the first round of dialogue and has become an integral part of the process. It is funded through Australia’s development cooperation program. It incorporates projects in fields such as legal reform and capacity building, education, police ethics, women and children’s rights, the role of civil society, and the implementation of international human rights instruments. Each activity is designed and implemented through a cooperative venture between the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

(HREOC) and a particular Chinese Organisation.

On 10 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice concerning human rights in Tibet

.

(1)What was the outcome of the 7th Australia-China

Human Rights Dialogue which took place in China and Tibet

on 28 July 2003.

…

(5) Will [the Minister for Foreign Affairs] explain the Government’s position on the ongoing dialogue between China

and the representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

(6) Did the Government ever consider appointing a Tibet

Co-ordinator to facilitate dialogue, as the United States of America has done.

(7) What is the Government’s position on the recent meeting between the Dalai Lama and the President of the United States on 9 September 2003.

(8) Will the Government be raising the issue of Tibet

with the President of the People’s Republic of China

during his forthcoming visit to Australia.

Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

(1) Australia was able to raise its full range of concerns about the human rights situation in China

, including those that relate to Tibet

. The dialogue agreed on the next set of projects to be undertaken as part of the bilateral Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program, including reaching agreement to extend the Program to Tibet. China briefed Australia on further steps it was taking to minimise the potential for human rights abuses. The delegation passed to the Chinese a list of cases of individuals of concern. Nine individuals whose cases we had raised with the Chinese during and since the last round of the Dialogue in 2002 have since been released.

…

(5) The Australian Government supports and encourages dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Chinese leaders.

(6) No.

(7) The Australian Government does not hold a view on meetings between the Heads of Foreign Governments and religious leaders.

(8) I raised human rights in Tibet

with my Chinese counterpart Mr Li Zhaoxing during the visit of President Hu.

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in China

. An extract from the statement follows:

Our bilateral Human Rights Dialogue with China

enables a robust exchange views on human rights. We look forward to further progress in and concrete outcomes from the dialogue. We acknowledge China’s progress in recognising social and cultural rights but encourage further steps towards the realisation of civil and political rights. We encourage China’s efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability into its legal and administrative systems. We call on China to ensure that its judicial system does not curtail the right to freedom of expression, religion and assembly of individuals and groups, including in its counter-terrorism

activities at home. We particularly urge China to ensure the rights of its ethnic minorities, including Uighurs and Tibetans.

On 31 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice regarding union representation in China

.

(7) Is China

a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR); if so, (a) has China taken any reservations on Article 8, relating to the rights of individuals to form and join free trade unions, and (b) is he able to say whether China is complying with Article 8 of the ICESCR.

(8) Since 1996, has Australia taken any action or made any representations before any body under the ICESCR about China’s compliance with Article 8; if so, (a) when, (b) to whom, (c) by whom, and (d) what was the response; if not, why not.

(9) Since 1996, has any body under the ICESCR made any comments, or have any motions been moved, about China’s compliance with Article 8; if so, could he provide (a) the texts of the motions, and (b) a list of all votes for, against, and abstentions on, each motion.

(10) Has the issue of China’s compliance with ILO Conventions 87 and 98 been raised at the Australia-China

Human Rights dialogue; if so, (a) when, (b) to whom, (c) by whom, and (d) what was the response; if not, (e) why not, and (f) will it be raised at the next opportunity.

(11) Has the issue of China’s compliance with Article 8 of the ICESCR been raised at the Australia-China

Human Rights dialogue; if so, (a) when, (b) to whom, (c) by whom, and (d) what was the response; if not, (e) why not, and (f) will it be raised at the next opportunity.

(12) Has the general issue of trade union freedoms in China

been raised at the Australia-China Human Rights dialogue; if so, (a) when, (b) to whom, (c) by whom, and (d) what was the response; if not, (e) why not, and (f) will it be raised at the next opportunity.

(13) Has the case of the deprivation of basic human rights

at the Neil Pryde factory been raised at the Australia-China

Human Rights dialogue; if so, (a) when, (b) to whom, (c) by whom, and (d) what was the response; if not, (e) why not, and (f) will it be raised at the next opportunity.

An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

(7) Yes.

(a) China

made the following statement on ratification: The application of Article 8.1 (a) of the Covenant to the People’s Republic of China shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Trade Union Law of the People’s Republic of China and Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China.

(b) The Government is concerned that some aspects of these laws may be in inconsistent with international human rights instruments.

(8) No. Australian delegations to successive rounds of the bilateral Human Rights Dialogue urged China

to sign and ratify the ICESCR with a minimum of reservations.

(9) No.

(10) to (12) Australian delegations to successive rounds of the bilateral Human Rights Dialogue have raised with the Chinese delegation general concerns about labour rights and freedom of association, without eliciting any substantive response from the Chinese. The Government intends to continue to raise these issues as appropriate at future rounds of the dialogue.

(13) No. The most recent round of the Dialogue was held in July-August 2003. The Government will consider closer to the time whether it would be appropriate to raise this case at the next round of the Dialogue.

On 3 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to human rights in China

.

Question

(7) What steps has [the Minister for Foreign Affairs] taken to convey to the Government of the People’s Republic of China

Australia’s condemnation of the persecution of Chinese citizens who exercise their right to free speech on the internet.

(8) Has the issue of free speech for Chinese citizens on the internet been raised at the Australia-China

Human Rights Dialogue; if so, what was the response of the Chinese government; if not, why not.

An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

(7) We make regular and high level representations to the Chinese authorities about our concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression and use of the internet, and also make representations about individual internet activists. We carry out representations not only during the annual Human Rights Dialogue but throughout the year.

(8) Yes. The Chinese Government did not provide a substantive response to our representations. We will continue to raise this matter with the Chinese authorities.

On 16 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on building partnerships with China

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia has signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with China

that will help support ongoing Chinese reforms in governance and service delivery.

The China

Australia Governance Program (CAGP) MOU is effective until 2010 and signals an increased level of cooperation between the two countries.

As part of the MOU, Australia has committed an additional $20.3 million for a new and innovative program to facilitate and support strategic engagement between Australia and China

on governance issues.

For China’s continuing development and to ensure the benefits of increasing prosperity are shared more widely amongst the population it is critical that the country continues its current reform process.

The CAGP builds on the lessons, understanding and friendship of 23 years of development cooperation between China

and Australia. It will support links between Chinese agencies and Australian government departments and agencies and work on areas of mutual interest to both countries.

The initial focus will be on optimising the benefits from China’s recent accession to the World Trade Organisation

and improving fiscal management. Other possible areas to be considered under the program are tax reform, intergovernmental financial agreements, government procurement, fiscal transparency, integrity systems, and public service management.

With an emphasis on partnership, China

has now become Australia’s second biggest export market, surpassing the US, and investment from China in Australia continues to expand, reaching $2.2 billion in 2003.

Australia and China

continue to find innovative and meaningful ways to advance relations – based on mutual respect and a mature understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

On 21 October 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on Australia-China

human rights dialogue. An extract from the release follows:

Australian senior officials and their Chinese counterparts are today taking part in the eighth round of the annual Australia-China

Human Rights Dialogue.

The Human Rights Dialogue was established at the AustralianGovernment’s initiative in 1997 and gives both sides an opportunity to exchange views on human-rights issues of mutual concern. This year Australia is raising a range of human rights issues including civil and political rights, the legal system, women’s and children’s rights, rights of HIV/AIDs sufferers, ethnic minorities including in Tibet

and Xinjiang, and the treatment of groups such as Falun Gong. Australian officials will also raise individual cases of concern.

The meeting in Canberra is also expected to agree on activities to be conducted next year under the Human Rights Technical Cooperation program, including a Tibet

-focused program. The Human Rights Technical Cooperation program promotes the advancement of human rights in China

by helping China develop its legal system and by promoting women’s and children’s rights and ethnic and minority rights.

Australia is confident that this year’s dialogue will build further on last year’s frank and constructive exchanges. The commitment of both sides to the dialogue shows not only the strength of our bilateral ties but also recognition of the importance of improving standards of human rights.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee on the human rightssituation in China

. An extract from the statement follows:

We are pleased with the frank approach China

takes to our bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. We note China is increasingly aware of the need to improve its human rights practices. We urge China to press ahead with planned legal and administrative reforms. We are nevertheless disappointed that China continues to detain political prisoners, including in Tibet

, and are concerned at the number of executions over the past year, notably in Xinjiang Province. We urge China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

as soon as possible. In particular, we encourage China to allow its citizens freedom of expression and assembly.

Human Rights – Situations – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is deeply concerned about human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

. We urge the DPRK to engage more fully and openly with the international community in discussion of human rights issues and to address the issues raised in this forum last year in Resolution 2003/10.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

. An extract from the statement follows:

The human rights

situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

(DPRK) continues to give Australia cause for grave concern. Australia urges the DPRK to engage fully and openly with the international community to address concerns about the human rights situation.

Human Rights – Situations – Democratic Republic of Congo

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia welcomes steps to bring an end to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo

(DRC). But we are horrified by the massacre of more than 150 Congolese refugees

in Burundi in August. Australia calls on the Government of the DRC and rebel groups to prevent violence against civilians and take immediate action to ensure lasting peace and stability.

Human Rights – Situations – Indonesia

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in Indonesia

. An extract from the statement follows:

Indonesia continues to face challenges in building a civil society with democratic institutions while confronting the problems of terrorism and separatism. We welcome Indonesia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections as a further step in its process of democratisation. Australia believes that the best prospect for a sustainable solution to separatism in Aceh

and Papua lies in effective and speedy implementation of special autonomy within a united Indonesia. We remain concerned by reports of human rights abuses in these provinces. We call on all parties involved in the Aceh dispute to ensure that civilians’ rights are respected while the conflict persists. We continue to urge Indonesia to bring to justice those responsible for human rights abuses in East Timor

and to cooperate with justice processes underway in East Timor.

Human Rights – Situations – Iran

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extract is from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Dialogue with Iran

Australia was the first country to establish a formal human rights dialogue with Iran

. The first round was held in 2002 in Tehran. An understanding was reached at this round to hold a second round in Canberra at a time to be determined.

The first round involved a frank exchange of views covering a broad range of themes: international human rights issues, our respective constitutional, judicial and legal systems, the position of minorities (including Baha’is and Jews), the position of women

, freedom of expression and the role of national human rights institutions; and the death penalty. The Australian delegation also had separate meetings with senior figures from the Iranian judiciary, the clergy, women parliamentarians and prison officials. While Australia does not have a program of technical cooperation with Iran

, this has not precluded ad hoc initiatives. Following the first round of dialogue, a delegation from the Islamic Human Rights Commission of Iran visited Australia in 2003 to study the roles and functioning of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

On 24 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on Australia’s human rights dialogue with Iran

. An extract from the release follows:

My meeting with Foreign Minister Kharrazi was marked by good discussion of Australia’s important bilateral relationship with Iran

and developments in the Middle East

.

During our discussion of human rights

issues, I reaffirmed the value of Australia’s bilateral human rights dialogue with Iran

. I encouraged Iran to take further steps to strengthen its observation of international human rights norms.

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in Iran

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia supports the efforts of President Khatami and others to promote the rule of law and protect human rights

and freedoms in Iran

. We welcome Iran’s continuing cooperation with the United Nations, including the recent visit of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and the human rights dialogues which have been established with us, the European Union and other countries. However, like others, we were disappointed that so many candidates were disqualified from contesting the recent Majles elections. Attempts to suppress freedom of the press and a heavy-handed response to public demonstrations are also unacceptable. We are particularly concerned by reports of a violent attack on Iranian women

and men who had gathered to celebrate International Women’s Day. We urge Iran to do more to promote and protect the rights of women and to uphold the rights of minorities, including the Baha’i and Jewish communities.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in Iran

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia is troubled by the human rights situation in Iran

and is committed to engaging constructively with Iran on human rights issues. We are particularly concerned by reports of the execution of minors and urge Iran to comply with its obligations to protect the rights of children. Evidence of violations of legal due process and of the suppression of press and other freedoms of expression are also of concern. We urge Iran to do more to promote and protect the rights of women

and to uphold the rights of minorities, including the Baha’i and Jewish communities.

Human Rights – Situations – Iraq

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in Iraq

. An extract from the statement follows:

We welcome progress in Iraq

on the transition to a democratic and representative system of government. One year after the Coalition launched its military intervention to disarm Iraq, there is widespread optimism among the Iraqi people about their country’s future and a determination to maintain national unity in the face of attempts by terrorists to sow divisions. The recent adoption by the Iraqi Governing Council of a Transitional Administrative Law is an important milestone in the process towards the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government. The Law enshrines fundamental freedoms for the people of Iraq, including protecting the rights of regional groups, women and minorities. The adoption of the law gives Iraqis renewed confidence that the days of tyranny are well behind them.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in Iraq

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia welcomes progress in Iraq’s efforts to build a modern, representative democracy, firmly based on respect for human rights. While we recognise Iraq

faces many challenges, not least in terms of security, Iraqis are embracing hard-won human rights such as freedom of speech, assembly and association. New political parties have emerged, women and minorities are engaged in political life, and Iraqis have access to a flourishing media. The Transitional Administrative Law, in which Australia is proud to have had a drafting role, provides a binding framework which clearly defines Iraq’s human rights obligations. We strongly encourage the international community to continue to support Iraq’s rehabilitation, and in particular to assist Iraq to complete arrangements for the elections scheduled for January 2005.

Human Rights – Situations – Laos

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to human rights

in Laos

.

Question

(1) Has the Government made representations to the Government of Laos

regarding the treatment of the Hmong people.

(2) Will the Government use its influence with the Laotian Government to encourage them to seek a peaceful relationship with the Hmong people.

Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

(1) Yes.

(2) Yes. The Government, through the Australian

Embassy in Vientiane, maintains an ongoing dialogue with the Lao Government on human rights issues, including on ethnic minority issues. The Embassy has met senior provincial and central government officials on several occasions to encourage a peaceful resolution to the issues of the treatment, resettlement and development of Hmong communities. It has also arranged training for Lao government officials on their human rights obligations.

Human Rights – Situations – Syria

On 15 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to human rights in Syria

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

(1) The Syrian

Government imposes a range of restrictions on the general Kurdish population, including in relation to the use and expression of the Kurdish language and culture, and political activity. Particular restrictions are imposed on those Kurds resident in Syria who were classified as `foreigners’ following a special census in 1962. As `foreigners’ these people (who comprise some ten per cent of the total Kurdish population) do not have access to a range of rights and benefits available to Syrian nationals, such as the right to own land, operate a business, vote, register marriages, obtain Syrian travel documents and access public hospitals.

There are reports that Syrian

authorities have proposed a law allowing people of Kurdish origin who have lived in Syria for more than 10 years to have the right to Syrian nationality. It is not known when this law will be passed.

(2) The Australian Ambassador accredited to Syria

(resident in Cairo) has made representations on a number of human rights issues during visits to Syria. The Ambassador will make further representations to the Syrian authorities during his next visit to Damascus.

Human Rights – Situations – Uganda

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in Uganda

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is gravely concerned by the treatment of children by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda

. The LRA continues to abduct children to fight its war, forcing them to commit appalling acts of violence. We urge the LRA to cease immediately its child abductions and call on the Ugandan Government to continue efforts to end this conflict.

Human Rights – Situations – Vanuatu

On 30 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to human rights in Vanuatu

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

Answer

The government is very concerned about measures which have been taken by the Vanuatu

government that do, frankly, wind back progress towards good governance and economic reform, weaken Vanuatu’s ability to combat transnational crime and threaten its security and prosperity. Actions that they have taken include the reappointment of officials charged with serious offences, interference in judicial processes, attempts to weaken legislation to monitor financial transactions and reduction of press freedom.

Australian government officials went to Vanuatu

from 23 to 26 November to make it clear to the government there that they should commit to upholding the rule of law, maintaining the integrity of Vanuatu’s institutions, pursuing economic and governance reform and combating transnational crime. The simple fact is that Australia provides a lot of development assistance to Vanuatu, and I think the Australian people are happy to help the Ni-Vanuatu. On the other hand, we do not think we should be spending money on governance and economic reform programs that are not happening. If the government of Vanuatu are not to pursue improvements in the quality of governance and economic reform, we will not be funding them. It is as simple as that. We are not imposing, as the Prime Minister of Vanuatu has claimed, conditions on Vanuatu; we are simply saying that the government of Vanuatu should make a credible commitment to Vanuatu’s own laws and institutions and continue with policies of good governance and economic reform—policies which have been developed by previous governments in Vanuatu.

Finally, we have been talking and will continue to discuss this issue with other donors such as the European Union, the United States, France, the UK and, obviously, New Zealand because we think it is important there is a coordinated approach to this problem. I hope the government of Vanuatu understands this: there is a coordinated approach and we look to help the people of Vanuatu, but we will only help them in a substantial way, particularly in the area of governance, if they themselves are prepared to pursue good policies, sensible policies and ethical policies.

Human Rights – Situations – Vietnam

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extract is from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Dialogue with Vietnam

The first round of dialogue with Vietnam

was held in 2002 in Hanoi. The second round took place in Canberra in July 2003 and the third took place in Hanoi in June 2004.

Australian concerns which have been raised include: freedom of expression; the plight of ethnic and religious minorities in the central highlands; restrictions on the use of the internet; religious freedoms; and the death penalty.

Following the second round of dialogue, the Vietnamese delegation along with representatives of other Vietnamese Government agencies undertook a study tour run by HREOC

designed to demonstrate how Australia manages human rights issues. The Vietnamese delegation visited the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the NSW Police, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, and other organisations that deal with human rights issues on a day-to-day basis. Following the third round of dialogue, the Australian delegation took part in a study tour to the Central Highlands in Vietnam

which provided them with the opportunity to deliver key human rights messages to senior provincial officials.

On 24 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning Australia-Vietnam

Human Rights Dialogue. An extract from the release follows:

Australia and Vietnam

are holding their third round of annual bilateral human rights talks in Hanoi today.

The dialogue – titled International Organisations and Legal Issues, including Human Rights – is a further example of the Australian Government’s practical and constructive approach to addressing human rights issues.

Australia also conducts dedicated human rights dialogues with China and Iran. These dialogues underpin the Government’s view that, in order to make a real and lasting difference to human rights, it is necessary to work cooperatively with other governments.

The dialogue will cover a range of issues including national approaches to human rights, cultural and religious diversity, judicial reform and approaches to criminal law, and technical cooperation.

Human Rights – Situations – Zimbabwe

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights in Zimbabwe. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is intensely concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe. We strongly condemn the routine use of government security forces and youth militia to harass and physically attack those who publicly oppose the Government of Zimbabwe. We are concerned by reports of “youth training camps” which politically indoctrinate youth and train them in violent techniques against political opponents. We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to repeal anti-democratic and anti-free speech laws and to establish a dialogue with the political opposition. We call on the Government to address the horrific political, economic and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe.

On 16 October 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming the acquittal of Zimbabwean Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the acquittal of Zimbabwe’s Opposition Leader Morgan Tsvangirai by the Harare High Court.

The Australian Government has always maintained that the charges against Mr Tsvangirai for an alleged plot to kill President Robert Mugabe were trumped up in a cynical attempt by the Mugabe regime to undermine the Opposition’s credibility.

The inexplicable delays in the trial, procedural inefficiencies and the absence of any compelling evidence against Mr Tsvangirai further testify to the politicisation of the judicial process.

Mr Tsvangirai’s acquittal justifies all our suspicions about the insubstantial nature of the charges against him.

We trust there will be no further such attempts to use the judiciary for political purposes in the lead-up to Zimbabwe’s parliamentary election next year.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in Zimbabwe

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is appalled by the systematic campaign of human rights abuses carried out by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Opposition supporters are harassed, intimidated, and tortured, and repression of the free press continues. Proposed legislation threatens to restrict severely NGOs’ ability to work to improve human rights. The Mugabe Government’s policies continue to impoverish the people of Zimbabwe, and the need for food handouts is growing. Australia calls on the Mugabe Government to prevent further human rights violations and establish a framework for political reconciliation and economic recovery.

On 10 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to the imprisonment of a Zimbabwean Opposition MP. An extract from the release follows:

I am deeply concerned by the imprisonment of Roy Bennett, Member of Parliament with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe

.

On 28 October, the Zimbabwe

Parliament sentenced Mr Bennett to one year in prison with labour for pushing a Minister in a parliamentary debate. This “offence” would have attracted a maximum $30 fine had he been found guilty by a Zimbabwean court.

Instead, Zimbabwe’s Parliament, dominated by President Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party, used its own powers to investigate the incident and impose a sentence on Mr Bennett far harsher than he would have received from an unbiased court.

This incident follows four years of relentless political persecution of Mr Bennett. During this time, he has been arrested, assaulted and evicted from his home. His wife has been held hostage, two men who worked for Mr Bennett have been murdered by members of the security forces and two young female workers have been raped. President Mugabe has publicly threatened Mr Bennett and encouraged ZANU-PF supporters to force him from his constituency.

Mr Bennett’s case highlights yet again the Mugabe regime’s determination to cling to power in Zimbabwe

by whatever means possible. Mugabe’s flagrant disregard for democratic principles and the rule of law has brought only hardship and suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.

The Australian Government demands the immediate release of Mr Bennett and an end to all further persecution against him, his family, friends, workers and colleagues.

On 15 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning non-governmental organisations

in Zimbabwe

. An extract from the release follows:

I condemn the new law passed by Zimbabwe’s Parliament banning international human rights groups from working in the country.

President Mugabe’s ruling party has used its majority in Parliament to push through the “Non-Governmental Organisations Bill”. The new law bans all international organisations in Zimbabwe

working on “governance issues,” including many human rights organisations. It places severe restrictions on local human rights organisations and prevents them from accessing international donor funding.

The Mugabe regime forced this legislation through Parliament, ignoring a report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee that the legislation was unconstitutional. Australia, along with many other concerned countries, urged the Zimbabwean Government to stop the passage of the new law.

This, like the imprisonment of opposition Movement for Democratic Change MP Mr Roy Bennett, is yet another example of President Mugabe’s determination to silence dissent at any cost.

Australia abhors the utter contempt with which the Mugabe regime treats the people of Zimbabwe

and calls on Zimbabwe’s Government to repeal the NGO legislation immediately.

Human Rights – Status of Women

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights

, Mr Tim Caughley

, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, on behalf of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights regarding the human rights of women

. An extract from the statement follows:

It is more than twenty years since the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women entered into force. At the end of last year, more than ninety percent of the UN membership had become a party to this treaty. But this treaty must become universal. We again call on those states that have not yet done so to ratify the Convention and to join the international consensus on women’s rights. It is also nearly ten years since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. I would like to underscore the continued commitment of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to the implementation of those documents.

Yet, at a time when the international community should be moving forward with programmes designed to fulfil our commitments, there are some states that are beginning to question the common standards we have all agreed to. It is especially unfortunate that there are delegations that are attempting to resile from the international commitments that they undertook at both Cairo and Beijing, and that they can no longer reaffirm those outcome documents.

We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern that, in the present environment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve consensus among Member States on critical issues concerning women’s rights. Our delegations welcomed the Third Committee’s adoption last year of resolutions on domestic violence against women

and another mandating the preparation of an in depth study on violence against women. But we were at the same time deeply disappointed by the Committee’s inability to reach agreement on the omnibus resolution, which would have set out comprehensively widely-held concerns about this appalling problem.

We continue to see increasing rates of trafficking of women

and children. We continue to see alarming increases in HIV/AIDS infections among women and adolescent girls, fuelled by gender inequalities, stigmatisation, violence and discriminatory attitudes. And we continue to hear reports of widespread sexual violence being used as a weapon of intimidation and war in ongoing conflicts around the globe. All of this amply demonstrates the continued relevance of international commitments to eliminating violence against women and the urgent need for concerted international action.

There have been, however, some welcome steps forward recently. The celebration of the third anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325 and the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute

mark significant achievements. We were pleased to welcome last year the appointment of the new Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Yakin Erturk, and are looking forward to the continued effectiveness of this important mandate. Similarly, we were pleased that the Commission on the Status of Women agreed last month to a set of conclusions on the role of men and boys in promoting gender equality. These conclusions focus on achieving attitudinal and behavioural change in, among other areas, violence against women

.

On 3 March 2004, Ms Kerry Flanagan, First Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Status of Women, delivered a statement on behalf of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations to the 48th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women in relation to the status of women

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia welcomes the opportunity to participate with other member states at this year’s session of the Commission on the Status of Women to further progress the commitments to women in the Beijing Platform for Action and the Beijing Plus Five Outcomes Document.

The Commission has a vital role to play in reviewing the implementation of international standards on women’s human rights and equality of women. We look forward to sharing best practices and lessons learned in implementing Beijing commitments, and exchanging views and perspectives on how we can deliver real improvements in the lives of women and girls around the world.

The Australian Government is strongly committed to achieving gender equality and continues to support and develop innovative measures to achieve this. Women and girls in Australia continue to make steady progress in many fields including in education, training, employment, politics and decision-making. Details of these achievements are outlined in an attachment to the written text of my statement.

Let me first of all talk about the theme – Women’s equal role in conflict prevention, management and resolution and post-conflict peace-building. The Australian Government acknowledges the significant contributions that many women

have made to peace-building and conflict resolution, especially through their informal work in local communities. It is committed to increasing women’s involvement particularly in formal mechanisms. Many women want to participate in formal arenas but face barriers in the form of customs, traditions and stereotypes which are often indirect and difficult to address. Concerted efforts are needed by the international community to help overcome these obstacles and enable women to participate in decision making and leadership positions.

…

This session of the Commission on the Status of Women is being convened at an important juncture. We will be commemorating next year the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the thirtieth anniversary of the First World Conference on Women. This year’s meeting therefore provides a valuable opportunity to consider how to best structure CSW’s work to maximise outcomes for next year’s commemoration and beyond.

It is my delegation’s view that too much time is spent at CSW in negotiations that have little policy impact. Not enough focus is given to sharing experiences among our experts, who are involved in practical implementation on the ground. The high-level roundtables and the experts dialogues have been valuable in reorientating CSW to facilitating such exchanges. But more needs to be done to focus CSW’s work on practical outcomes that can assist countries in implementing Beijing and Beijing plus five. In particular, we believe that next year’s session must provide an effective opportunity for high-level participants to exchange views on lessons learned; share best practice and identify obstacles and constraints in implementation. We look forward to engaging in discussions to identify innovative ways to improve our working methods.

The Australian Delegation looks forward to working with member states to develop practical approaches that will deliver lasting improvements for women. The Delegation is also keen to share further information about Australia’s best practices and to learn about other members’ strategies for achieving equality for women.

Human Rights –The Role of Men and Boys in Gender Equality

On 3 March 2004, Ms Kerry Flanagan, First Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Status of Women, delivered a statement on behalf of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations to the 48th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women regarding the role of men and boys in gender equality. Extracts from the statement follow:

The second theme of this meeting – The role of men and boys in gender equality – is an important issue for Australia. Our government recognises that men and boys play a vital role in addressing gender equality.

…

Increasing men’s involvement in the change process towards gender equality is a critical step in tackling entrenched gender stereotypes and roles and eliminating discrimination and violence from the lives of women

and girls, and is a significant challenge for all governments, the international community and local communities. It is important that men be encouraged to be involved in tackling gender equality – not only as political leaders, employers, teachers, lawyers and journalists – but also as fathers, brothers, partners, carers, colleagues and peers. More work is needed through education and socialisation to tackle entrenched attitudes and behaviours towards women and girls and strategies need to be evaluated and best practices shared more widely.

Human Rights – Status of Women – Violence against Women

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr Tim Caughley

, representative of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning violence against women

. Extracts from the statement follow:

As the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women said in her first report, “violence against women

is a violation of women’s entitlement to their fundamental rights and freedoms”. Violence against women is universal. We cannot ignore the devastating impact of gender-based violence for women, their families and their communities. Nor can we underestimate the importance of its elimination in achieving our broader international development and poverty reduction goals. The high rates of violence against indigenous women are also still an issue of great concern.

…

The contexts in which violence against women

occurs are expanding and highlight the underlying gender inequalities that are at its root: in conflict and post-conflict situations, in the home and in the community, and trans-nationally. The Special Rapporteur notes a widening of the arena in which violence against women occurs and the risk of it becoming normalised in the every day and “every night” lives of women.

The intersection between gender inequality and violence is made abundantly clear in the case of HIV/AIDS and its devastating impact on women

, their families and communities. We are encouraged to note that the Special Rapporteur will focus on this issue in the coming months.

As the Secretary General stated on March 8th, “when it comes to violence against women

, there are no grounds for tolerance and no tolerable excuses”.

The greatest achievements of the past decade in the struggle against violence have indeed been awareness raising and standard setting. The second decade must indeed focus on the implementation of effective programmes and strategies to ensure that the prohibition against violence becomes a tangible reality for the world’s women

.

Human Rights – Status of Women – Women, Peace and Security

On 3 March 2004, Ms Kerry Flanagan, First Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Status of Women, delivered a statement on behalf of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations to the 48th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women in relation to women, peace and security. An extract from the statement follows:

The Australian Government is strongly committed to the increased participation of women in all peace processes. We have actively supported post-conflict peace-building programs in the Solomon Islands and Bougainville, which have ensured women’s involvement in peace processes. Australia’s statement to the United Nations on the third anniversary of the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325 called for enhanced efforts by all member states and the international community to achieve real improvements for women. Increasing the visible participation of women in formal peace processes, such as in peace-keeping forces and as representatives of international bodies, provides important role modelling and confidence building opportunities for local women. The Government believes that increasing women’s participation will also help address the human rights violations, including sexual violence, people trafficking and systematic rape, that many women experience during times of conflict.

On 28 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council on the 4th Anniversary of Resolution 1325: Women, Peace and Security. An extract from the statement follows:

Thank you for convening this meeting on the fourth anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1325. Australia is proud to reaffirm its commitment to this resolution which remains a landmark document, both for the Council in its recognition of the true dimensions of peacebuilding, and for its international recognition of the particular burden women

and girls bear as a result of conflict.

In Australia, community organisations have held public seminars to make the provisions of SCR 1325 widely known. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom has been given government funding for a website which provides comprehensive information on SCR 1325. Through our aid program we have provided training on SCR 1325 to the Australian Defence Force and to military personnel from the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia has prepared an issues paper that outlines the latest research and best practice on women’s role in peace-building in Asia and the Pacific. From our research, we are developing practical aid policy guidelines which will encourage the role of women in peace-building projects.

In recognition of the responsibilities which individual states have, we are incorporating the concepts of SCR 1325 into our development cooperation programs. In the Philippines we are funding the implementation of a national survey on the participation of women

in peace, governance and development. This survey will be a milestone in highlighting the concerns of women in peace, governance and development. We are also funding a conference bringing together women from Mindanao, Cambodia, Timor Leste, Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands to develop awareness of the role of women in the post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction.

The international community more generally has made some progress in pursuit of SCR 1325. The Rome Statute

of the International Criminal Court, for example, is the first treaty to recognise certain acts of sexual and gender violence as among the most serious crimes under international law.

So many positive steps have been taken to implement the provisions in SCR 1325. But as we have said at previous meetings, much more needs to be done. We must make sure that women

participate effectively in all levels of peace operations and processes. Equally importantly, we must ensure that men receive training in understanding women’s rights and the role of women in peace-building.

It is crucial that we consider gender dimensions of conflict as being integral to the achievement of sustainable and lasting peace. Only then will we achieve a balanced perspective and arrive at balanced solutions. Resolution 1325 provides the guidance to do this. We must ensure that the basic principles of conflict prevention, the participation of women

in peace and security, and the specific protection needs of women are incorporated into the work of the Security Council, other agencies of the United Nations, the international community more generally and individual member states. Australia is committed to playing its part in this respect.

Human Rights – Torture

In November 2004, Australia’s Fourth Report under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

was presented to the United Nations Committee against Torture. An extract from the report follows:

This report demonstrates that Australia takes its obligations under the Convention seriously and continues to progressively implement, monitor and enforce mechanisms to proscribe and prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all Australian jurisdictions. Australia strongly supports international action against torture and deplores such behaviour wherever and whenever it occurs.

The Government is currently considering whether it will ratify the Optional Protocol

to the Convention. On 26 November 2003 the Australian Senate referred this issue to the independent Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), comprising 16 members of the Australian Parliament House of Representatives and Senate for inquiry and report. After requesting and analysing written submissions, and hearing oral arguments, JSCOT issued a report in March 2004. The report found, inter alia, that ‘there is no suggestion that the independent national preventative mechanisms are inadequate in Australia. Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments all conduct education and training programs and have mechanisms to prevent torture’. Consequently, the report recommended against the Commonwealth Government taking binding treaty action with respect to the Optional Protocol at this time.

The Government has not yet made a decision about whether it will ratify the Optional Protocol

. However, the Government believes that there are appropriate legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent acts of torture currently in place in Australia.

Human Rights – United Nations

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extracts are from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Multilateral objectives

Australia’s multilateral human rights

objectives are pursued through active participation in UN mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights. We seek to encourage reform of the UN system and adherence to existing human rights instruments-to ensure the effective operation of the related monitoring machinery-and to expand the body of human rights machinery in specific areas where gaps exist.

…

The United Nations provides the international framework for achieving a secure and peaceful world in which the human rights of all are respected. Australia considers that the promotion of human rights should be a common thread running through the activities of the United Nations. Australia supports the efforts of the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote an integrated system-wide approach to the United Nations’ human rights activities. We recognise, however, that the United Nations needs to improve its capacity to adapt and respond effectively to the complex challenge and new threats faced by the global community. Australia has long been an advocate of a more focused and efficient UN system and supports the Secretary-General’s revitalisation efforts, including the high-level panel on threats, challenges and change.

While human rights issues cut across the work of the United Nations they are most systematically pursued within two key UN arrangements. These are the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (which meets between September and December each year to examine and debate major international human rights issues, including the human rights situation in specific countries, thematic issues and the United Nations’ standard-setting exercises), and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR, the pre-eminent international forum for the promotion and protection of human rights, which meets annually in Geneva for six weeks in March and April).

…

Australia has been, and will continue to be, closely involved in the development of international human rights law and related institutions. For example, we played a leading role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute

of the ICC was adopted by the Rome Diplomatic Conference on 17 July 1998, and entered into force on 1 July 2002, thereby making the Court a reality. During this period, Australia chaired the Like Minded Group of nearly 70 states that supported the Court’s creation. The establishment of the ICC has been one of the Government’s prime multilateral and human rights objectives. The Government firmly believes the Court will deter people from committing the most egregious international crimes, and will make a valuable contribution to punishing those who do. Australia will continue to make an active contribution to the ICC through our participation in the Assembly of States Parties.

Human Rights – United Nations Commission on Human Rights

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr Tim Caughley

, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, on behalf of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights regarding the human rights treaty body system. An extract from the statement follows:

Improving the effectiveness of the human rights treaty body system is also a priority for our countries, and we will make further specific comments on this important issue under Item 18. But we welcome the positive improvements in staffing and resourcing of the support to both the Treaty Bodies and the Special Procedures within the Office of the High Commissioner. The Commission, and all States Parties, have a direct interest in the effective functioning of these Committees and Mechanisms in order to strengthen human rights at the domestic, regional and international levels. We support the efforts of the Office to bring more transparency and consistency to the process of selection of Special Rapporteurs. We anticipate that further measures will be taken to continue the good work already done, and we pledge our support for ongoing action on improvements.

The Report of the High Commissioner raises a number of challenging and thought-provoking issues concerning protection. We shall be looking carefully at these proposals Mr Chairman. We are convinced that the CHR, in order to remain credible, must demonstrate ownership for ending gross violations of human rights. The Commission is the body mandated to bring to the attention of the international community issues of fundamental concern regarding the promotion and protection of human rights.

Let us all be clear that the responsibility for implementing human rights rests with States. No State can be immune to scrutiny of its human rights performance. All States must strive to improve implementation of human rights standards by whatever means possible. These are the principles that should govern our work. Too often we find that countries spend considerable time and effort in avoiding examination of systematic violations of human rights occurring within their borders. These energies would be better spent in putting a halt to all such violations to serve the people of the countries they represent.

We must all work together, Mr Chairman, to ensure that the Commission on Human Rights meets the responsibility entrusted to it by the countries of the United Nations. There is still a huge deficit in performance. And this Commission must assume responsibility for that.

Human Rights – Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On 10 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release marking the 56th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

. An extract from the release follows:

Today marks the 56th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Australia has a proud tradition of protecting and promoting human rights, and I am pleased to announce the provision of almost $600,000, through AusAID’s Human Rights Small Grants Scheme, for new projects in 10 countries in Asia and the Pacific.

These practical initiatives assist grassroots organisations to support human rights in a direct and tangible way. The projects will see human rights work undertaken at the community level, helping to make a practical difference to the lives and futures of ordinary people.

I congratulate the recipients of these funds, commend them for the efforts they have made in formulating and gaining community support for these initiatives, and look forward to the success of their projects. The new activities to be funded are:

• Cambodia: The Peace and Development Institute will provide multi-media human rights education and develop human rights curricula for schools

• East Timor: Forum Tau Matan will monitor and educate community groups and legal officials about prison conditions

• Federated States of Micronesia: The Ministry of Justice will build on a record of legal reform to improve juvenile justice programs

• Fiji: The Fiji Disabled People’s Association will train and provide resource material to community advocates for disability rights

• Laos: The Lao Ministry of Foreign Affairs will target children, teachers and school officials in community education campaigns on human rights and obligations.

• Pakistan: The Researchers Organisation will address issues relating to violence against women

• Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands National Council of Women will provide non-partisan support for women candidates in the country’s next election

• Sri Lanka: The Institute of Human Rights will provide human rights training to Sri Lankan police, especially those involved in criminal investigations

• Tonga: The Tonga Women’s Association will provide non-partisan support for women candidates in the 2005 election and provide training for new parliamentarians

• Vietnam: The Centre for Education, Promotion and Empowerment will provide community based activities aimed at preventing trafficking in women and children.

Social Law – WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

On 30 March 2004, the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

, done at Geneva on 21 May 2003, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The convention has been established to address the enormity of the worldwide tobacco consumption epidemic. It aims to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. Ratification of the Convention would promote the uptake of effective health and development tobacco policies by other nations.

The World Health Organization estimates that current levels of tobacco use will kill ten million people yearly by 2030. In Australia, the current smoking prevalence rate is around 20 per cent (or 3.6 million people aged 14 and over) and tobacco use continues to be identified as the single greatest behavioural cause of death and disease. Although Australia is seen as a world leader in its domestic efforts to reduce smoking and protect non-smokers from exposure to tobacco smoke, nineteen thousand Australians still die prematurely every year as a result of long-term tobacco use.

…

Australia has a long history of tobacco control effort. Our policies include a ban on cigarette sales to minors and on smoking in most public places, and the prohibition of tobacco advertising. The Convention, once in force, will promote acceptance of similar policies internationally. It will also establish a strong framework for international cooperation and the exchange of scientific and policy information giving Australia greater access to overseas expertise.

Social Law – Working Holiday Arrangements – Thailand

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone

, issued a press release concerning the Work and Holiday Visa Arrangement between Australia and Thailand

. An extract from the release follows:

Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone

, today announced a reciprocal Work and Holiday Visa arrangement between Australia and Thailand

. The arrangement was signed today in Canberra by Senator Vanstone and Thai Foreign Affairs Minister, Surakiart Sathirathai.

The agreement opens up new opportunities for young people from the two countries wishing to travel and experience different lifestyles and cultures.

‘The Work and Holiday visa will allow university-trained young people from Australia and Thailand

to work and holiday in the other country for up to 12 months,’ Senator Vanstone

said.

‘This new arrangement is an important investment in future relations with Thailand

and also highlights the importance of people-to-people links between our two countries.’

The Work and Holiday visa is different to a ‘Working Holiday’ visa arrangement, in that it requires an applicant to have the support of their government, hold tertiary qualifications and speak functional English.

Senator Vanstone

said Australia was a popular destination for Thai travellers, with 39,186 Tourist visas granted to Thai nationals in the period from 1 July 2003 to 31 May 2004 – a five per cent increase over the same period in the previous year.

The arrangement, which will be open to professionals aged between 18 and 30, will come into effect when legal procedures on both sides have been completed.

VII. Diplomatic and Consular Relations

Diplomatic Protection

On 13 October 2004, Mr Ben Playle, Second Secretary for the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Sixth Committee in relation to diplomatic protection. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia welcomes consideration of further measures to enhance the protection of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives. We remain deeply concerned about the security and safety of such institutions, particularly in the face of continuing terrorist threats.

Unfortunately Australia has had first hand experience of such attacks with the bombing outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia on 9 September 2004. Australia wishes to register its deep concern over the bombing, and to record again our appreciation for the ongoing cooperation of the Indonesian Government. While we are relieved that no Embassy staff were killed, we deeply regret the fact that nine Indonesian nationals died – including police and security officers guarding the Embassy. Our hearts go out to their families. The Australian Government is assisting those who suffered as a result of the bombing, by providing financial help to the families of those killed and to those who were injured, livelihood support for affected families and support to strengthen the capacity of Indonesian emergency services. The bombing demonstrates again that diplomatic missions continue to be a prime target for terrorist groups.

Australia greatly appreciates the cooperation of Indonesian authorities following the Jakarta bombing, including the deployment of extra security personnel and continuing closure of traffic lanes outside the Embassy and the Ambassador’s Residence. Sadly, the bombing has shown that diplomats remain a high-priority target for these criminals.

Australia calls upon all States to work together in ensuring the safety and security of their diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, and to ensure all perpetrators of terrorist acts are brought to justice in accordance with international law.

On 3 November 2004, Mr Michael Gumbley, Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations, delivered a statement to the Sixth Committee regarding diplomatic protection. An extract from the statement follows:

Turning to the topic of diplomatic protection, Australia considers that as this subject deals with the protection of nationals injured abroad, its clarification and codification is of importance to all States. In this regard, we would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Professor John Dugard, for his fifth report on diplomatic protection. It is due to his thorough and scholarly approach that the Commission has been able to advance and adopt its set of 19 draft articles on this subject.

As we noted last year, Australia remains particularly interested in the subject of diplomatic protection of corporations and of shareholders in such corporations, given the difficulties involved in codifying workable rules on this subject. We note the Special Rapporteur’s approach in draft Article 9 endorsing the fundamental principle enunciated in the Barcelona Traction case, as well as draft Article 11 containing limited exceptions to that principle to protect foreign investors. We further note the development of language on the requirement of continuous nationality of corporations in draft Article 10.

Another matter on which the Commission has sought guidance from States relates to the issue of the diplomatic protection of members of ship’s crew by the flag State, as elaborated in draft Article 19. As we have stated in previous sessions, Australia is of the view that the law of the sea, including relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

, cover this issue adequately. Moreover, given the inconclusive State practice on the right of flag States to seek redress for ship’s crew, Australia considers that this topic should be excluded from the draft Articles.

Iraq

On 15 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release announcing the reopening of the Iraq Embassy in Australia. Extracts from the release follow:

I am delighted to announce that the new Iraqi Ambassador, Mr Ghanim Taha Ahmad Al-Shibli, has arrived in Canberra to reopen his country’s Embassy, which has been closed since March 2003.

Mr Al-Shibli returned to Iraq in April 2003 to take up senior roles within the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The demise of Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship has given the Iraqi people their first chance in 35 years to forge a new, representative government in a society based on the rule of law and committed to upholding human rights.

I welcome Mr Al-Shibli’s arrival as a further step in Iraq’s transition to an effective and stable democracy and as a reflection of our strong bilateral relationship.

Kuwait

On 23 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the opening of a new Australian Embassy in Kuwait. An extract from the release follows:

I am pleased to announce the opening today of a new Australian Embassy in Kuwait City, Kuwait. The establishment of our mission marks a new phase in the excellent bilateral relationship between Australia and Kuwait.

Australia and Kuwait enjoy strong relations based on solid commercial links and like-minded views on many international issues. We share a cooperative relationship in military and security affairs.

Australia’s principal exports to Kuwait are motor vehicles, live animals, wheat and dairy products. Our main imports from Kuwait are petroleum and petroleum products. After growing by 9.3 per cent in 2002, Australian exports to Kuwait rose a further 5 per cent to $555 million in 2003. Imports rose by 36 per cent in 2002, but fell by 17 per cent to $138 million in 2003.

More broadly, an Australian diplomatic presence in Kuwait reflects Australia’s interest in constructive engagement with the Middle East.

Libya

On 21 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a joint press release on the opening of a Diplomatic Mission in Libya

. Extracts from the release follow:

We are pleased to announce that Australia will open a diplomatic mission in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. This will be the first step toward establishing an Embassy in Tripoli in the near future.

Mr Downer

informed Libya’s government of the new mission during meetings with Prime Minister Dr Shukri Ghanem and Foreign Minister Avd al Rahman Shalgam while visiting Libya

from 19-20 May.

Mr Downer

also welcomed Libya’s decision to abandon Weapons of Mass Destruction and join the international community in the fight against terrorism during his visit.

…

The decision to establish the new mission in Tripoli recognises the many positive changes in Australia’s relationship with Libya

since the restoration of diplomatic ties in July 2002.

…

The mission will reinforce government support for Australia’s commercial ties with Libya

. Since Mr Vaile’s successful visit to Libya in July 2002, Australia’s commercial links with Libya have strengthened. Of particular note is Woodside Energy Ltd’s $140 million oil and gas contract with the Libyan National Oil Company.

The growth in Australian trade and investment will increase the number of Australians living and working in Libya

. Providing consular services to these Australians will be an important function of the new mission.

The new diplomatic mission will also enhance Australia’s capacity to broaden the relationship with Libya

. Strong commercial ties will be the most visible foundation, but we expect the relationship will mature beyond that in the years ahead.

Australia looks forward to substantial dialogue on matters of interest to both countries including on human rights, regional security, transnational crime and cooperation in international forums.

Nauru

On 11 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the maintenance of a temporary Consulate-General in Nauru

. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government will provide $0.6 million in 2004-05 to extend Australia’s diplomatic presence in Nauru

for a further year.

Australia’s Consulate-General provides support for the work of government agencies involved in processing asylum seekers

and is a contact point for official dealings with Nauru

.

Processing of asylum seekers

, the resettlement of refugees

and the repatriation of those judged not to be refugees has taken longer than expected due to unforeseen events such as the war against terrorism

and hostilities in Iraq.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade established an Australian Administrative Centre on Nauru

in September 2001.

Since 2002-03, the Government has allocated funding on a year-by-year basis to maintain the Consulate-General.

Overseas Missions – Security

On 8 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to the security of Australian missions overseas. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

Honourable members will recall the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 9 September and the tragic consequences that flowed from that bombing. But one of the lessons we learned was the effectiveness of the blast proofing of the windows of the Australian embassy. As a result of that bombing, the government decided immediately to blast-proof windows at all our overseas missions—at a cost, I might say of $83 million. Although it is a lot of money, it is money worth spending. We have also been conducting an assessment of the security measures that we already have in place at our overseas missions. As a result of this, the government have now approved an additional $590 million for a new substantial package of security measures, which will commence this financial year, focusing of course on our higher threat posts. We aim to have in place new minimum and enhanced standards at all our posts.

The attack on the US Consulate in Jeddah over the last couple of days simply illustrates the importance of having good perimeter security and also hardened walls. New purpose-built chancelleries are being designed to withstand bomb blasts, with hardened walls which will provide a level of protection against assault. These initiatives build on the priority work that DFAT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has undertaken in the last two years, spending an additional $100 million. This demonstrates the importance the government attaches to ensuring the security of people who visit, as well as work in our missions overseas. This $590 million package which we have announced today will include repair work at the embassy in Jakarta, following the 9 September bombing. The package itself will be implemented over a period of five years. In this age of terrorism

we just cannot be too careful in providing protection for our diplomats and officials, as well as visitors to our missions overseas. We think it is wise to spend the additional money over a five-year period, and that should give much greater confidence to officers of the Australian government who are serving overseas.

Vietnam

On 2 March 2004, the Consular Agreement between Australia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

, done at Hanoi on 29 July 2003, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The consular relationship between Australia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

has to date, been governed by the provisions of the multilateral Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) of 24 April 1963 [1973] ATS 7 to which both Australia and Vietnam are Parties.

The Agreement confirms and amplifies the VCCR, but also expands its provisions in some respects. It establishes a framework for consular relations between Australia and Vietnam and should deliver more certainty for Australian citizens, including dual nationals, seeking consular assistance in Vietnam.

The Australian Government regards consular access to its citizens arrested or detained overseas as vital to the discharge of its consular rights and duties. In the past, the Australian Government has encountered particular difficulties in securing consular access to arrested or detained Australian citizens who also possess Vietnamese citizenship. The Agreement sets out clearly defined time limits for the notification of a detained citizen to consular officials and also guarantees monthly consular visits to citizens of each country detained or arrested in the other country.

…

The Australian Government regards consular access to its citizens arrested or detained overseas as vital to the discharge of its consular rights and duties. The Australian Government has, from time to time, encountered difficulties in securing consular access to arrested or detained Australian citizens in Vietnam

.

Under current arrangements, which rely on the provisions of the VCCR, the time limit for notification of the arrest or detention of citizens of each country is not explicitly defined. By contrast, the Agreement establishes such time limits. For example, if officials in either Australia or Vietnam

detain or arrest a citizen of the other country, they must notify the relevant consular officials of the arrest within three working days and a consular visit to the detainee must be permitted within two working days thereafter unless the detained individual expressly requests that the consular post of the relevant country should not be informed.

The provisions of the VCCR are not specific in detailing the regularity of consular visits to detained nationals. The Agreement guarantees monthly consular visits to citizens of each country detained or arrested in the other country. In addition, both countries will be obliged to provide reasons for the detention of a national of the other and the details of any charges. Consular representation at trials is also guaranteed.

The Australian Government has encountered particular difficulties in securing consular access to arrested or detained Australian citizens who also possess Vietnamese citizenship. This is because Vietnam’s nationality law does not recognise dual (or plural) nationalities. The Agreement reaffirms that a person, regardless of his or her nationality, who possesses an Australian passport is entitled to consular access and assistance from Australian consular posts.

The Agreement allows for annual consultations on the consular relationship including any issues of concern to either Party, as well as consultation on individual difficult consular cases as required from time to time. These may involve Australian-Vietnamese citizens who choose to enter Vietnam

on Vietnamese documentation.

VIII. Treaties

Treaty-Making Process

On 17 November 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade hosted a seminar entitled ‘Treaties in the Global Environment’, which included presentations by Ms Caroline Millar, First Assistant Secretary, International Organisation and Legal Division and Mr Chris Moraitis, Senior Legal Adviser, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Mr Mark Zanker, Assistant Secretary, International Trade Law Branch, Attorney-General

’s Department. The seminar included presentations on Australia’s international negotiating agenda, the relationship between treaties and domestic law and a number of practical presentations on how to go about negotiating treaties. The presentations are available on the DFAT website.

Of specific interest is the following extract from the presentation by Mr Mark Zanker, concerning the place of treaties in the Australian Constitution:

The conclusion of and accession to treaties, be they multilateral or bilateral, is a matter for the Government of the day in the exercise of the executive power of the Commonwealth conferred by section 61 of the Constitution. Government negotiation of, or agreement to, international treaties is normally considered by Cabinet.

The Federal Executive Council, established under section 62 of the Constitution must approve Australia’s entry into treaties. The responsibility for making recommendations to the Executive Council with respect to the issuance of full powers, signature, accession, ratification, termination and amendment of treaties rests with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a matter of policy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot recommend to the Executive Council that Australia become a party to a treaty where the law of Australia is at variance with the obligations imposed by the treaty.

Treaty Action

On 23 June 2004, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT

) issued what is perhaps its most important report to date: the report on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). AUSFTA was signed on 18 May 2004 in Washington and entered into force on 1 January 2005.

At the conclusion of its report, which recommended that binding treaty action be taken, the Chair of JSCOT, Dr Andrew Southcott MP, noted:

During the course of its three month inquiry into the proposed AUSFTA, the Committee received over 215 submissions and held 11 days of hearings in seven cities. Since its establishment in 1996, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has reported on all treaties signed by Australia. The AUSFTA is of unprecedented breadth and complexity.

The introduction to this JSCOT report provides a useful overview of the history of the Committee and its role.

IX. International Organisations

Asian Development Bank

On 15 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to the Regional Trade and Financial Security Fund. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

In his press release of 21 October 2003, the Prime Minister announced Australia’s support for the Regional Trade and Financial Security Fund. This initiative, now referred to by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as the Cooperation Fund for Regional Trade and Financial Security Initiative (FRTFSI), was established at the APEC Leaders Meeting in Bangkok in order to undertake capacity building in APEC developing economies relating to port security, anti money laundering and counter financing of terrorism. The Asian Development Bank will administer the initiative and Australia has agreed to commit funds of $1.5 million AUD over 3 years, $1 million disbursed in 2003/04 with $250,000 to be provided annually in 2004/05 and 2005/06. The United States has agreed to commit $5 million USD in total, involving cash and in-kind contributions. In addition, Japan has also signalled its intention to contribute up to $1 million USD.

The ADB, in consultation with donors, has prepared proposed governance arrangements for the initiative. It is expected that the ADB Executive Board will endorse these arrangements in mid June. Australia, expects to provide the first component of Australia’s financial contribution in June 2004.

Australia’s contribution is intended to compliment Australia’s already substantial assistance in regional counter terrorism capacity building. The Australian Government believes it is important that developed economies show leadership on regional security and is working to encourage participation by other developed economies. The Australian Government is committed to a secure and prosperous region and is pleased to be playing a leading role in the development of the Cooperation Fund for Regional Trade and Financial Security Initiative.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

On 7 December 2004, the Amendment in order to admit Mongolia

as a country of operations to the Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD], done at Paris on 29 May 1990, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The proposed treaty action is to accept a proposed amendment to the Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Agreement) in order to admit Mongolia

as a country of operations.

…

The EBRD was established in 1991 to foster the transition towards open market oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.

Australia is one of the 60 countries and two intergovernmental institutions that are members of the Bank. Each member appoints a Governor to the Bank. The Treasurer, the Hon Peter Costello MP, is Australia’s Governor at the EBRD.

…

Mongolia

has been a member of the EBRD since 9 October 2000. However, as a non-European country, it has not been eligible for EBRD lending.

Following a request from Mongolia

, the EBRD Board of Governors voted on 30 January 2004 on a resolution to amend the Agreement to admit Mongolia as a country of operations (which would make it eligible for EBRD lending). All Governors voted in support of the resolution.

Australia was supportive of the resolution, as it would allow Mongolia

to access, and benefit from, technical and financial assistance from the EBRD.

International Fund for Agricultural Development

On 2 March 2004, the Withdrawal from the Agreement Establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development, done at Rome on 13 June 1976, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is a small Rome-based international financial institution established in 1977 as an outcome of the 1974 World Food Conference. IFAD was originally intended as a way of channelling Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) funds into development assistance, but OPEC interest in IFAD has diminished sharply from 43% of total contributions at IFAD’s establishment to only 5% at its most recent replenishment. A specialised agency of the United Nations, IFAD’s mandate is to combat rural hunger and poverty in developing countries. Australia is a founding member of IFAD with a shareholding of less than 1%, and has committed a total of A$50.3 million since 1977.

IFAD’s programs are not consistent with Australia’s national interest in delivering a focused, coherent aid program directed to Australia’s priority development partners in South-East Asia and the Pacific. Key reasons for Australia’s withdrawal include:

a) Limited geographic relevance – the Australian aid program’s priority regions of South-East Asia and the Pacific accounted for only around 7% of IFAD loans over the five years to 2002; and IFAD’s planned project activities list for 2003-04 includes only three projects in South-East Asia and none in the Pacific (of a total of 40 new projects worldwide).

b) Lack of comparative advantage and focus – in its early years IFAD had a niche role in assisting the rural poor. Now many bilateral donors, non-government organisations and larger international financial institutions devote significant resources to assisting the rural poor. For a small institution, IFAD also spreads its resources very thinly. In 2002 it had 203 current activities in 92 countries.

c) Shortcomings in management and donor relations – IFAD suffers from structural inefficiencies, highly centralised management and poor communication between IFAD headquarters in Rome and the field. IFAD has been unresponsive to Australia’s concerns.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

On 19 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the North Atlantic Council, in Brussels, entitled “Enhanced Cooperation with NATO

in a New Security Environment”. Extracts from the speech follow:

We – the community of nations represented by NATO

and Australia – have been confronted head-on by a new security environment in recent years. At your Prague Summit in 2002 NATO members agreed that terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and failed states were among the defining security challenges of today. It is a view of the contemporary security environment shared by Australia.

…

Just as NATO

is evolving to address contemporary security threats, so too the changed environment has affected the way in which the Asia-Pacific nations – individually and collectively – have been addressing security issues. There are several threads that shape Australia’s view of today’s strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific.

China’s growing economic and political weight, and the international maturation that has accompanied it, is the single most important strategic trend in the Asia Pacific region. China

is taking seriously its responsibilities as a major power…through its accession to the WTO…its support for the war on terrorism…its role in the North Korea six party talks…and its restraint over the Taiwan elections.

…

Today market economics, democracy and good governance are largely unchallenged as guiding principles for the region, though implementation of these principles may be less than complete. Overall economic growth prospects for East Asia are good. The lessons of the Asian financial crisis have been largely digested, with economic and governance reforms set in train… though some economies continue to face complex and serious economic development and governance challenges.

…

In the South West Pacific, Australia has for some time been concerned at the decline of effective governance and institutions and declining law and order, the result of years of public underinvestment, mismanagement, corruption, and neglect.

…

These problems have brought some of our Pacific neighbours dangerously close to state failure. Such are the factors that are shaping the security environment in the Asia-Pacific, and that have shaped Australia’s foreign and security policies accordingly. We are – unashamedly – taking a more hands-on, activist approach to the region and the challenges confronting it. We continue to play a major role in peacekeeping and nation building in East Timor…Australia was at the forefront of the military effort required to quickly deploy INTERFET to stem the violence that followed the 1999 ballot…and we remain focused on assisting East Timor achieve stability and prosperity.

…

Just as NATO couples the security of Europe with the security of North America, so too US engagement in the Asia-Pacific region underwrites our regional security. There is no question our current links serve us well, including:

• our strategic dialogues at officials’ level and in areas of specific and longstanding concern – such as WMD proliferation.

• our program of technical cooperation with NATO

• the participation of Australian service personnel in NATO technical committees

• and NATO’s offer to assist with Athens Olympics security, which is of very clear relevance to Australia.

…

Strengthened cooperation with NATO is something Australia is keen to pursue. As I said earlier, it is my firm view that circumstances will compel us to work more closely together in the years ahead. A strengthened relationship will help prepare us for those challenges that as yet lay over the horizon. From Australia’s point of view, further cooperation might include:

• consultations and exchanges of information and experiences on issues including counter terrorism, counter proliferation, crisis management and peace keeping

• and as an early practical measure, commencing talks on the Information Security Agreement proposed by NATO.

• and as our relationship develops, we see value in moving to examine more structured frameworks for cooperation.

Combining our common experiences and unique perspectives will enhance security in our own regions, and be for the benefit of the broader international community.

United Nations

– Reform

On 27 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the International Law Conference in Adelaide entitled “The Challenge of Conflict, International Law Responds”. An extract from the speech follows:

Australia has a long and proud record of involvement in the work of the UN – and our commitment to the UN remains strong. We are the twelfth largest contributor to the UN budget …and among the top ten contributors to UN peacekeeping operations. As a long-standing advocate of a more focused and efficient UN system, Australia has long argued that reform is desperately required.

We are pleased at the growing recognition of this need and look forward to contributing to the Secretary General’s review process on reform. Gareth Evans, my predecessor as Foreign Minister, is a member of the high-level review group established by the Secretary-General.

The priority areas are clear to Australia. The General Assembly is in dire need of reform and revitalisation. It should be the thriving centre of the multilateral system. Instead is has become an outdated forum of marginal relevance to member states, overgrown with pointless resolutions.

Only fundamental changes to its work programme and methods will restore its authority and prestige. The Security Council also needs to reform. We are pleased with the modest changes to date of its operations, particularly to increase its transparency. And, notwithstanding our concerns about the Council in the context of the Iraq war, it remains one of the most effective and relevant UN bodies. But the Council’s composition is out of step with geopolitical realities –it still reflects the immediate post-war era. Its permanent membership needs to be expanded to include populous nations influential in their own regions and major industrial powers able to make substantial contributions to international peace and security.

While Australia will remain a strong advocate for reform of the UN, we are realistic about the prospects for success. Progress is dependent on international will, and there is little appetite amongst the beneficiaries of the current system for radical change.

On 22 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding the Australian contribution to United Nations reform efforts. An extract from the release follows:

I am pleased to announce a contribution of $100,000 to support efforts to reform the United Nations system.

The funding is being provided to the high-level panel established by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in November 2003 to examine contemporary challenges to international peace and security and make recommendations for ways to strengthen the UN system.

Australia’s contribution to this effort reflects our commitment to the United Nations and its vital role in promoting international peace and security. It also reflects our assessment that the international community needs to look critically at ways to improve the efficiency of the UN’s institutions and processes. To maintain its credibility and relevance, the UN must be able to adapt and respond effectively to the complex challenges and new threats faced by the global community.

The high-level panel has begun its deliberations and we look forward to bold and innovative recommendations for reform emanating from its report later this year. In the meantime, Australia’s contribution will help ensure the panel’s important task can be completed.

On 30 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations 59th Session General Debate regarding United Nations reform. An extract from the statement follows.

Australia strongly supported the establishment by the Secretary-General of a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change last year and stands ready to contribute to ambitious outcomes.

…

Australia welcomes the direction of panel discussions – as far as we understand them – with respect to both doctrinal and institutional reform. Australia has contributed actively to the panel’s work and we encourage the panel, in its remaining deliberations, to work towards ambitious recommendations on all its work programme – including Security Council reform, addressing threats from WMD and terrorism, humanitarian intervention and effective collective action.

We note here, on structural reform, that Australia has advocated expanding the permanent membership of the Security Council to make it more compatible with geographical realities through the addition of Japan, India, Brazil, an African country and possibly Indonesia.

Whatever the final shape of the panel’s report, one thing is clear – high-level political commitment will be crucial to bringing bold reform recommendations to fruition. And we would encourage all member states to give the Secretary-General their full support in consideration of the panel’s recommendations. One opportunity to do this will be the 2005 UN Heads of Government Summit. The Summit provides an excellent forum not only to review implementation of the Millennium Development Goals but also to endorse a reformed UN, better equipped to deal with the challenges it faces.

…

Australia has long advocated the need for UN reform. Back in 2000 Mr Downer

warned that ‘in the absence of change and adaptation, the organisation will wither as the nations of the world bypass it in favour of mechanisms that are more relevant to their needs.’ Of course, this warning was before September 11, before coalition action in Afghanistan and Iraq and before the terrorist bombings in Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, Istanbul and many other locations.

If the need for reform was pressing then, it is critical now.

The High-Level Panel provides the best prospect for repositioning the UN system to meet contemporary challenges. This is an opportunity we cannot waste if the UN – our organisation – is to retain a substantial role in maintaining international peace and security in the 21st century.

On 3 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming the High-Level Panel Report on UN Reform. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, released in New York on 2 December.

…

Australia has long advocated reform of the multilateral system and has strongly supported the work of the Panel. I am pleased to see that the Panel has made a serious attempt to grapple with difficult issues and has delivered some bold recommendations which highlight the close links between global security and development challenges.

I welcome the Panel’s focus on action to combat the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including the potential for terrorists to acquire such weapons.

…

The Panel has also presented bold proposals for assisting failed and failing states, notably through the establishment of a Peace building Commission. I will carefully consider the merits of this proposal in light of our peacekeeping experience in our region and the impact such a commission would have for future peace operations.

I will look closely at the Panel’s recommendations on expanding the UN Security Council and reconfiguring the UN’s regional groups for the purpose of Council elections. Australia has long supported expanding the permanent membership of the Security Council through the addition of Japan, India, Brazil, an African country and possibly Indonesia.

United Nations

– Reform – Disarmament Machinery

On 21 October 2004, Mr Paul Stephens, Counsellor for Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee in relation to disarmament machinery. An extract from the statement follows:

First Committee delegations need to give careful consideration to the current state of the multilateral disarmament machinery and to realistic opportunities for revitalizing it. We are all aware of the problems in the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission – when functioning, two essential components of the disarmament machinery – and the reasons that those fora have been unable to do substantive work for some time. We see no value in dwelling on these problems.

However, leaving aside those two bodies, there are ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of the multilateral disarmament machinery. The Australian delegation is gratified to see the way in which the First Committee is embracing the initiative to improve its methods of work. We have seen substantive improvements introduced over the past two General Assemblies, leading to a more efficient operation. We support the drive to introduce an interactive component to our discussion and to adjust the agenda to make it more relevant to contemporary security concerns. We would be pleased to see even greater use made of relevant international organisations and NGOs, whose participation in Committee debates adds value to our work. We acknowledge, of course, that such initiatives must proceed on the basis of consensus, at a speed with which all delegations are comfortable.

We are pleased to see many delegations heeding the call to introduce shorter, more streamlined and action-oriented resolutions. We believe it would be timely for sponsors to consider also the value they get from, and often the administrative burden they impose by, requesting the views of member states via various resolutions. With so many such requests made, and in some cases little value gained from the ensuing reports, it is little wonder that the member state response rate is so low.

We also believe there is a preponderance of requests for groups of governmental experts. If the issue is mature enough, such groups can be a useful and productive way of taking forward the consideration of important disarmament and security matters. If not, they can be unproductive and impose a large financial and human resource burden on the UN. Australia would be comfortable placing mandatory limits on the number of groups of governmental experts agreed each year. There could also be alternative ways to take forward particular issues, for example by referring them to discussion in other UN groups, such as the UNDC. This action could serve the dual purpose of revitalizing discussion within the UNDC and saving the UN the burden of establishing an ever-increasing number of groups of governmental experts.

United Nations

– Reform – Human Rights Mechanisms

In 2004, Australia’s Human Rights Manual 2004 was launched. The following extracts are from the Foreword by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Since the manual was last revised in 1998, the Australian Government has embarked on an initiative to promote efficiencies in the way the UN treaty bodies conduct their business, and interact with each other and states parties. Australia is encouraged that, as a result of this initiative, reform issues are now firmly on the agenda of the UN human rights

system. As efficiencies are achieved, valuable resources are freed to deal with the egregious human rights abuses that still plague global society in the twenty-first century. More work remains to be done and Australia will continue its support for reform.

…

The human rights

treaty bodies, and the treaties under which they monitor compliance, are:

• Human Rights Committee-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR)

• Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR)

• Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

• Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW

)

• Committee against Torture-Convention against Torture (CAT)

• Committee on the Rights of the Child-Convention on the Rights of the Child

(CROC)

• Committee on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families-Migrant Workers Convention (MWC)

Australia supports the human rights treaty body system as a cornerstone of the United Nations’ efforts to promote and protect human rights. However, we also recognise that states parties and the committees themselves both encounter difficulties in pursuing their objectives-not least because of the massive volume of information required to be collected, submitted, translated and considered. This situation must be improved if the system is to continue to contribute effectively to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Australia has therefore sought practical improvements in the UN human rights machinery. Our efforts to reform the practices of the human rights treaty bodies are aimed at strengthening the United Nations’ ability to contribute to improving human rights standards around the world- an initiative that complements the practical approach we bring to our bilateral human rights diplomacy. Australia has taken several practical initiatives to further treaty body reform, and has continued to pursue this goal during our membership of the Commission on Human Rights from 2003 to 2005.

In August 2000 the Australian Government announced a diplomatic initiative aimed at improving the effectiveness of the UN human rights treaty bodies. The aim was to improve the operation of the bodies so that they could effectively, and in a balanced way, focus their limited resources on the most serious human rights problems. To this end, Australia hosted three workshops focusing on improving coordination between the treaty bodies, and streamlining reporting requirements. This initiative has been highly successful in placing reform issues firmly on the agenda throughout the UN human rights system.

…

Australia welcomed the UN Secretary-General’s calls for reform including his report of 2002, Strengthening of the UN: an agenda for further change which focused on better aligning resources with priorities, better serving member states, and improving coordination within the United Nations and within civil society. While there have been improvements in many areas of the UN human rights system, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the treaty body committees themselves, there still remains much work to do in order to achieve the Secretary-General’s goals.

On 25 October 2004, Mr Henri-Paul Normandin, Representative of the Canadian Mission to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to the Third Committee regarding the implementation of human rights instruments. Extracts from the statement follow:

The human rights treaty bodies play a vital role in the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level. We welcome the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ early indication that support for the treaty bodies is one of the highest priorities for her Office.

At the heart of the treaty body system is the objective of full and effective implementation of human rights treaty obligations by States, including reporting to the treaty bodies and implementation of their recommendations. A strengthened treaty body system supports this goal.

In recent times we have seen all parties – States, the treaty bodies and the Secretariats which serve the treaty bodies – work together for the continued improvement of the human rights protection system. It is no longer entirely accurate to talk about supporting the ‘reform’ of treaty bodies. What we are all supporting now is a process of continuous improvement. We are all encouraged and inspired by the Secretary-General’s support for this goal and the steps towards improving the operation of the treaty bodies that are in train.

…

There is also much that individual treaty bodies can do, and are already doing, to improve the way they work. In this context, we welcome their now regular dialogues with States on working methods. We note those committees with a backlog of reports awaiting consideration are examining proactive measures to address this, including the possibility of meeting simultaneously in chambers. In our view, it is imperative that reports are considered in a timely way to ensure the effectiveness and integrity of the human rights system. Addressing the backlog will have resource implications – as will the increasing demand for technical assistance.

We urge the Secretariats of Committees to seek new and innovative ways to use existing resources more efficiently. Further, we commend to the Fifth Committee for its consideration proposals to improve the operations of Treaty Bodies.

We also welcome the measures being adopted by the Committees to enter into dialogue with non-reporting states. It is important to find out why States are not complying with their reporting commitments, to provide assistance where it is needed, and to be proactive in addressing those that disregard their reporting obligations.

We would like to stress the importance of Committees concentrating in their Concluding Observations on concrete measures which can be implemented by States and on which States can focus in subsequent reports to the Committees. They should focus technical and political support on practical improvements to the human rights situation on the ground. The role of country rapporteurs within Committees is important to the preparation of focussed Concluding Observations and effective follow up. We encourage all human rights treaty bodies to enhance their emphasis on implementation and follow up of the Concluding Observations.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights continues to play a critical role. It has examined its own working methods and introduced steps to increase consistency across the system through the pooling of Secretariat resources. We encourage the Office and the Committees to look at further working smarter initiatives.

We would also like to commend the Office for its recent recommendations regarding technical parameters for reports to the treaty bodies. These parameters, which include page limits and other technical guidance, will assist States prepare reports in an efficient manner and will assist the treaty bodies to consider these reports efficiently. We hope that by following these guidelines, States will assist the treaty bodies to reduce the current backlog of reports.

During the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, Ms Amanda Gorely, of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights mechanisms. An extract from the statement follows:

We have taken the floor today to underline the importance we place on the effective functioning of the international human rights monitoring mechanisms and to highlight developments over the past year towards improving the operation of the human rights treaty committees.

…

There is also much that individual treaty bodies can do, and are already doing, to improve the way they work. In this context, we welcome their now regular dialogues with States on working methods. We note those committees with a backlog of reports awaiting consideration are examining proactive measures to address this, including the possibility of meeting simultaneously in Chambers. In particular, we welcome the measures being adopted by the Committees to enter into dialogue with non-reporting states. We also see scope for even greater use of information technology to reduce the enormous paper mountain and we encourage innovative thinking to reduce the cost and volume of documentation.

In this regard, we are pleased to hear that the new committee on Migrant Workers is seeking to draw on the best practice of the other treaty bodies in developing its own working methods.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights continues to play a critical role in bringing positive change to the system. The Office has examined its own working methods and introduced welcome steps to increase consistency across the system through the pooling of Secretariat resources. We encourage the Office to look at further working smarter initiatives.

United Nations

– Reform – Operational Activities for Development

On 9 July 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to ECOSOC

concerning United Nations Operational Activities for Development. Extracts from the statement follow:

We agree that important steps forward have been made, particularly in improving the cohesion of operations at the country level and in aligning programs to enable achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration. Progress has been made in simplifying and harmonising processes, particularly administrative processes.

We applaud efforts to strengthen field level coordination and support, facilitated in part by the common platform provided by the UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) and Common Country Assessments (CCAs) at the country level. The clear links developed between UNDAFs and CCAs, the MDGs and significantly, the development priorities of partner countries, are important. Also important is the development of results frameworks to monitor implementation. Continued efforts to strengthen coordination with actors outside the UN – the Bretton Woods Institutions, bilateral donors, NGOs and the private sector – are also positive.

These are all areas where the UN reform agenda is moving forward. We congratulate the Secretary General and agencies on achievements to date and initiatives underway. There is still however much to be done to effectively implement the reform agenda.

…

I would like to mention a few of the issues that we see as critical (some of which are already identified in the Secretary General’s report).

• Delivery of a UN system that has a genuine “unity of purpose and action”, as the Secretary General describes in his report. This is fundamental to the effective functioning of the UN system, particularly at the country level. Each agency has its own mandate and comparative advantage. The challenge for the UN is to recognise and value these as the various agencies work together.

• Further development of joint programming initiatives where appropriate, the strengthening of the Resident Coordinator system and adoption of regional approaches where these make sense.

• Translation of the common purpose into concrete results on the ground – the ultimate indicator of success – and strengthening the results based management approach

• Working to maximise the impact of the UN, playing to its comparative advantage, while recognising the important role of bilateral donors, regional organisations, the BWIs and NGOs, and working closely with them.

• Strengthening and further integrating the evaluation functions of the different UN agencies, to ensure a better focus on assessing the impact of the UN system on a country and to maximise the benefits of the lessons learned by different agencies.

• Increased focus on post-conflict regions and countries, leading to the development of a coherent, cooperative and effective response from the UN system as a whole to transition situations.

• Intensification of efforts by all UN agencies to ensure that gender considerations are mainstreamed into their work, building on the work undertaken to date.

• Consideration of funding issues for UN funds and programs, but alongside a clear recognition of the importance of the quality of assistance – its effectiveness and targeting – not just issues of quantity.

We urge the Secretary General to consider all of these issues in the context of the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR). It is a critical opportunity for the General Assembly to assess how the UN reform agenda is progressing. Australia is fully supportive of the TCPR and will contribute actively.

United Nations – Reform – Security Council

On 11 October 2004, Dr Tim McIvor, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand to the United Nations General Assembly in relation to the United Nations Security Council. Extracts from the statement follow:

Reform of the Security Council remains a key issue. There is widespread support for expansion of the membership of the Council but no consensus on the issue of new permanent membership. The President of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly worked hard to advance the discussion. But the Open-Ended Working Group effectively remains deadlocked. There is no realistic prospect that the Working Group on its own can achieve agreement.

…

Australia, Canada and New Zealand hope that a proposal of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change will provide a basis for a successful negotiation on a more representative Council. The Panel has been asked by the Secretary-General to provide independent recommendations on this and other key issues facing the United Nations. We urge Member States not to seek to pre-empt the Panel’s report, but rather to respect the Panel’s independence and keep an open mind on possible ways forward.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand are prepared to be flexible. We agree that reform must involve an increase in non-permanent membership and that there can be no extension of the veto. We look to enhanced opportunities for Security Council membership for all Member States, not just a privileged few.

…

As important as the structure of the Council may be, what is no less critical is the manner in which it represents the interests of the global community in whose name it speaks and acts. It is a community comprising individual human beings as well as states. Accordingly the Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security must, as the Council has recognized incrementally, include the security of individual human beings as well as nations. In this context we welcome references such as that in Resolution 1564 underlining that a government bears the primary responsibility to protect its population within its territory. We would add however that the Council cannot ignore its obligations if the actions of a state violate that responsibility. What we seek is the evolution of international law and practice so that multilateral action may be taken in situations of extreme humanitarian emergency.

World Tourism Organization

On 2 March 2004, the World Tourism Organization Statutes, done at Mexico City on 27 September 1970, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An extract from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follows:

Australia joined the WTO in 1979. Perceived shortcomings in the WTO’s operations and programs as they then operated led to Australia’s decision to review its membership. As a result of this review, Australia formally notified the WTO of its intention to withdraw in 1989 and its membership ceased on 26 July 1990.

Since withdrawal, Australia has retained an interest in WTO activities, including through the provision of statistical information and participation in various forums and research activities. Changes within the WTO over the past decade have seen a broader direction and policy focus which aligns more closely with that of Australia’s, particularly in such areas as sustainability, quality, and in establishing expertise in the development of response strategies to major international incidents.

WTO membership will allow Australia to play an important and influential role in shaping the policy direction and programs the Organization pursues. It will provide greater access to international tourism research and statistics, expand Australia’s network of contacts, build our knowledge of key international tourism developments, and capacity to respond to global events impacting on tourism.

X. International Environmental Law

Climate Change – Australia–New Zealand Bilateral Climate Change Partnership

On 4 November 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, and the Convenor of the Ministerial Group on climate change, Mr Pete Hodgson, issued a joint press release concerning the Australia-New Zealand Bilateral Climate Change Partnership. An extract from the release follows:

Seven projects have been announced today under the Australia-New Zealand Bilateral Climate Change Partnership. The new projects create more opportunities for Australia and New Zealand to work together to respond to climate change.

The Partnership, formally announced by the New Zealand and Australian Governments in July 2003, focuses on concrete and practical ways to address climate change.

Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, said the Climate Change Partnership was enabling New Zealand and Australia to work closely together on climate change.

“We are already seeing progress on the first round of projects. The projects we are announcing today will build on this work and importantly include initiatives involving our Pacific neighbours,” he said.

Climate Change – Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China

on Climate Change Activities

On 16 August 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between Australia and China

on climate change cooperation. An extract from the release follows:

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, today announced that Australia and China

had agreed on six new projects to further practical action on climate change.

“Australia is working with China

and other countries to take real action to combat climate change,” Senator Campbell

said. “A good example of this is a project that will explore how Australian and Chinese farmers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop farming systems appropriate to a changing climate.”

“The other projects I am announcing today will improve Australian and Chinese understanding of climate systems,” said Senator Campbell

. “Innovative Australian technology using satellite imagery will also be adapted to assist China

to measure its emissions from the land.”

The projects will be carried out under the Memorandum of Understanding on climate change cooperation signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, in Beijing today.

“The agreement builds on the Government’s commitment to practical cooperation with other countries as an essential part of an effective global response to climate change,” Senator Campbell

said.

On 16 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the Australia-China

Memorandum of Understanding on climate change cooperation. An extract from the release follows:

Today I will sign a Memorandum of Understanding on climate change with China’s National Development and Reform Commission.

The Memorandum represents a further step forward in Australia-China

cooperation in this area, following the signature of a Joint Declaration in Beijing in September 2003.

Both countries have much to gain from moving forward with a bilateral program in this area. Not only will it underpin and complement our domestic policies and actions, it will also contribute to activities underway at the multilateral, and regional levels to address the many dimensions of the climate change issue.

The Memorandum will establish a framework for the implementation of projects and activities in key areas such as climate change impacts and adaptation, emission reductions, technology cooperation, renewable energy and energy efficiency and capacity-building and public awareness. It will be administered on the Australian side by the Australian Greenhouse Office with involvement from other agencies. The relevant agency on the Chinese side is the National Development Reform Commission.

This Memorandum sets the scene for a major bilateral workshop scheduled for September in Beijing that will bring together Australian and Chinese industry, research and other non-government bodies to discuss strategies for increasing engagement in climate change related business.

An effective global response to climate change remains an important international objective for Australia. Closer engagement with China

is a positive development and one that reflects the Government’s active program of bilateral climate action partnerships and its involvement in a number of initiatives with interested countries aimed at the development of climate change-related technologies.

Climate Change – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(Kyoto Protocol)

On 15 June 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding climate change. An extract from the release follows:

The Howard

Government’s Energy White Paper, Securing Australia’ s Energy Future, establishes energy’s role in the forward strategy on Climate Change.

Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto target of 108 per cent of 1990 emissions in 2008 to 2012. From 1990 to 2002, Australia’s greenhouse emissions grew by only 1.3%, while GDP grew by 47%.

This has been achieved through comprehensive and practical measures in the energy sector, as well as new legislation to control synthetic greenhouse gases, improved agricultural practices and waste management, and effective partnerships with industry to address all sources of emissions.

“Australia is implementing a targeted and cost-effective response to address greenhouse emissions. We are meeting our obligations while continuing to support strong economic growth,” said Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp.

“Australia accepts the need for long-term reductions in our greenhouse signature, including significant long-term changes to the way we produce and use energy. Energy accounts for 68% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and is growing quickly,” Dr Kemp said.

While the Australian Government sees no need to impose significant, economy-wide costs, such as emissions trading, in advance of a globally effective response emerging, the potential costs of future adjustments and long-term investments in energy assets make it prudent to prepare for change.”

…

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Alexander Downer

, said “Australia will continue to actively participate in the effort to develop an effective global response to climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol

is not an effective response. It does not include all of the world’s largest emitters. And it can cause distortions leading investment to move to other countries without any global environmental benefits”.

14 December 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release in relation to the climate change conference in Buenos Aires. An extract from the release follows:

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, is in Buenos Aires leading the Australian Delegation at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (COP10). Australia is one of 189 countries participating in the meeting until 17 December to discuss progress in addressing climate change.

“Australia and our Pacific neighbours are highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change and we have a strong interest in global action to mitigate and adapt to climate change,” Senator Campbell said today.

“That is why Australia has been working so hard to encourage domestic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and actively promoting clean and alternative energy supplies.

“Australia is right on track to meet its agreed Kyoto target for greenhouse gas emissions (108 per cent of 1990 emissions by 2008-12). This means our emissions will be 15 per cent lower in 2010 than if we had taken no action.

“However, based on some current projections, global emissions will be 30 per cent higher in 2010 than in 1990. This reflects the absence of commitments by many major emitters to the Kyoto Protocol

, including developing countries.

“We need to find international responses that are environmentally effective, economically efficient and involve all major emitters.

“Above all we must tackle this issue in a way that safeguards world economic growth and development.”

On 15 December 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release in relation to the Kyoto Protocol

. An extract from the release follows:

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, today chaired a successful ministerial meeting of the ‘Umbrella Group’ at the Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

, a major international climate change conference in Buenos Aires.

The ‘Umbrella Group’ comprises Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Japan, Canada, Russia, Norway, Iceland and Ukraine. Kazakhstan is an observer.

“This coalition of countries – some who have ratified Kyoto and some who haven’t – works together very well and has advanced a number of joint proposals at this conference,” Senator Campbell

said.

“There is no doubt that this coalition, which drives half of the global economy, has exerted considerable influence over the course of the negotiations.”

At its meeting, the Group shared assessments of the prospects for a successful outcome to COP10 and exchanged views on the question of future global action.

The Umbrella Group is a key long-standing coalition of developed countries with shared interests across many aspects of the international climate change agenda. Australia has convened the Group since its inception seven years ago. The last meeting of the Group at ministerial level took place in April 2004.

On Climate Change – U.S. – Australia Climate Action Partnership

On 26 April 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, and the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Ms Paula Dobriansky, released the Joint Statement of the United States and Australia Following the Fourth Meeting of the U.S-Australia Climate Action Partnership. Extracts from the joint statement follow:

Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, David Kemp, and United States

Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, met today in Washington to review developments under the United States-Australia Climate Action Partnership (CAP).

Minister Kemp and Under Secretary Dobriansky said they were pleased with the progress being made under the Partnership. The Partnership demonstrates the benefits of bilateral cooperation in achieving practical outcomes to address climate change.

The Climate Action Partnership has nineteen projects underway covering technology development (including renewable energy, carbon sequestration, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, and clean coal technologies); energy efficiency; and climate change science.

…

At the meeting, the parties noted the importance of involving business in both project development and implementation. For example, Australia and the United States

are collaborating on the three synthetic greenhouse gas projects being undertaken by the Australian private sector. One of these involves an Australian company that is developing a technology to convert surplus ozone depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases into commercially useful plastics, such as high temperature and pressure gaskets used in engines.

International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law

On 3 November 2004, Mr Michael Gumbley, Adviser for the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to Sixth Committee concerning international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. An extract from the statement follows:

Turning to the ‘international liability’ topic, Australia welcomes the continued work of the Commission, following up on its consideration of ‘prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities’. We commend the efforts of the Special Rapporteur, Mr P.S. Rao, in concluding his second report on the legal regime for the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, and chairing the working group established by the Commission.

We refer to the eight draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities adopted by the Commission and make the following comments.

Australia would like to reiterate its previously stated view that the guiding principle should be that the innocent victim should not bear the loss, and that the primary responsibility for compensating such loss should rest with those in command or control of the activity at the time of the incident. This could usefully be incorporated into the objective in Principle 3.

With respect to damage to the environment, Australia would like to note that in some circumstances it may take several years for environmental damage to be realised. While Draft Principle 4 provides for the possibility of limitations, these limitations should take into account the length of time for such damage to be realised. We note that the procedure for assessing compensation for environmental damage needs further development.

With respect to Principle 5, Australia would like to support the taking of prompt and effective response measures by the State, if necessary with the assistance of the operator, or, where appropriate, entities other than the operator. This is essential to the minimisation of transboundary damage.

Australia would welcome the inclusion of a principle clarifying that the principles are without prejudice to rights and obligations of the Parties under rules of general international law with respect to the international responsibility of States.

Australia reserves its judgement on the final form of the work on this topic until it has given due consideration to the draft articles. In this respect, we note that the Commission has requested comments and observations from Governments on the draft principles by 1 January 2006.

Illegal Logging – Papua New Guinea

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to illegal logging in Papua New Guinea

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

(2) The Australian Government considers illegal logging an important issue in sustainable forest management. Australia is working constructively with many members of the Asia-Pacific region to build institutional and technical capacity to address illegal logging. Australia provides development assistance through bilateral, regional and multilateral programs. The Government is also active in international forums addressing illegal logging, such as in the United Nations Forum on Forests where an international arrangement on forests is currently being negotiated.

In the case of PNG

, the Australian Government is helping to improve the management of PNG forestry resources and ensure that the country’s forestry legislation is enforced. The Government is also actively supporting the World Bank’s efforts to improve forestry governance in PNG, and has made this position clear including through direct representations at the annual Australia-PNG Ministerial Forum.

(3) The Australian Government considers that working cooperatively with other countries remains the best way forward in addressing the illegal logging issue. The Government is not aware of any country where measures instituted to prevent the importation of illegally sourced timber are effectively enforced. Without the cooperation of other countries, acting unilaterally to restrict the importation of illegally logged timber would place the burden heavily on Australia to identify illegally logged timber and enforce the restrictions. At the same time, import restrictions might be burdensome on legitimate trade in timber.

Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation – Australia

and US

On 18 May 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, issued a joint press release regarding United States and Australian environmental cooperation. An extract from the release follows:

The Governments of the United States of America and Australia signed in Washington today an historic Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation.

The Joint Statement acknowledges the two countries’ many shared environmental priorities and challenges, including improving air and water quality, protecting their natural resources and biodiversity, better understanding climate change, mitigating the effect of chemicals on the environment, and protecting the marine environment.

The Statement strengthens the Governments’ commitments to knowledge sharing and cooperation in addressing environmental issues. It also expresses the desire of the United States and Australia to continue cooperative efforts and to strengthen their ties in regional and international forums in which environmental issues are considered, including the United Nations and WTO.

Memorandum of Agreement – Coral Reef Management

On 2 December 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release on the Australia-United States reef protection alliance. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, announced today an historic alliance between Australia and the United States to protect coral reefs.

Senator Campbell

said United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State of Florida to improve coral reef resilience.

Regional Initiatives – Regional Natural Heritage Program

On 29 June 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release in relation to the endangered species in Asia and the Pacific. An extract from the release follows:

The habitats of some of the world’s most threatened species, including the Sumatran Tiger and Vietnam’s Black Crested Gibbon, will be conserved thanks to Australian Government funded projects announced today.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, said the projects, funded under the three-year, $10 million Regional Natural Heritage Programme (RNHP), would help conserve threatened areas of high biological diversity -’biodiversity hotspots’ – upon which so many threatened species depend for their survival.

The announcement follows the launch of the programme by the Prime Minister, John Howard

in conjunction with Senator Meg Lees earlier this year.

Projects that will be funded include: Mondulkiri Elephant Conservation (Cambodia); conservation of Eastern Black Crested Gibbon and Snub-nosed Monkey (Vietnam); environmental education training and community awareness programme for Tam Dao National Park (Vietnam), community conservation of the Gau Highlands and the critically endangered Fiji Petrel in Gau Island (Fiji); delivering conservation and policy development for the Sulu Sulawesi Seas (Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines); conservation of Coral Reef Hotspots in the Bismarck Sea (Papua New Guinea); and enhancement of biodiversity conservation in Indonesia .

Recent studies by Conservation International revealed that the remaining natural habitat in these biodiversity ‘hotspots’ represents only 1.4 per cent of the land surface of the planet, but supports almost 44 per cent of the world’s higher plant species and 35 per cent of all terrestrial vertebrate species.

“In partnership with our regional neighbours, non-government and community-based organisations and the private sector, the Australian Government will help tackle these great environmental challenges.

International organizations such as the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, WWF, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society and BirdLife International will assist with implementation of these regional conservation projects.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

On 21 May 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release announcing Australia’s ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia yesterday ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

which requires all Parties to phase out the use and manufacture of some of the most toxic chemicals on earth.

Persistent organic pollutants include nine highly dangerous pesticides still used in developing countries, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins and furans produced unintentionally as by-products of industrial combustion worldwide.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer

said the Stockholm Convention

entered into force globally on 17 May 2004 and Australia already had the necessary implementing legislation in place.

“Australia was among the first countries to sign the Convention in 2001,” he said.

“This treaty will save lives and protect the natural environment. As well as banning the use of these toxic chemicals, the Convention focuses on cleaning up toxic dump sites from the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s which are now leaking and poisoning water resources, wildlife and people in developing countries.

“While Australia is well-placed to give effect to the Convention because of the work we have done to phase out persistent organic pollutants, more work needs to be done to reduce our unintentional industrial emissions of dioxins and furans.”

The Minster for the Environment and Heritage Dr David Kemp said Australia was in a good position to meet the nation’s obligations under the Stockholm Convention

with the success of programs such as ChemCollect and the National Strategy for the Management of Scheduled Wastes.

“I intend to establish a Stockholm Intergovernmental Forum for consultations with State and Territory Governments on developing Australia’s National Plan of Implementation. The plan will also provide include broad community and industry input,” he said.

“The Australian Government, through our Foreign Affairs, Health, Agriculture and Environment portfolios, worked hard in the development of the Convention . Now we will make every effort to eliminate and reduce these dangerous chemicals and emissions in our environment.”

Australia also concurrently ratified the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.

Sustainable Development

On 28 April 2004, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, delivered a statement to the Commission on Sustainable Development in New York on creating an enabling environment for sustainable development. An extract from the statement follows:

Creating an ‘enabling environment’ for sustainable development is important. If we don’t get this right, our other efforts may well fail.

In earlier comments today – on Meeting Targets, Goals and Timetables – I emphasized the role of the private sector, of consumer demand, and of well-structured markets in meeting the sustainable development goals.

It would be appropriate for us to consider during CSD13 what are the enabling governance arrangements needed for markets and private capital to develop and respond to consumer demand for water and sanitation services?

The governance conditions required for economic growth and human development are also fundamental to achieving sustainable development.

The rule of law – including contract law, secure property rights, and robust and efficient market regulation.

Stability and security – recognizing that properly respected democratic institutions provide the most flexible and adaptive arrangements to respond to peoples’ needs, desires and aspirations.

Sound economic management – with the capacity to gain the confidence of capital markets.

Without enabling conditions such as these, countries will not be able to maximise the development resources generated from foreign investment, trade liberalisation and domestic savings. They will also be poorly placed to protect their environmental capital.

In our own region, Australia’s increased assistance to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea – on invitation from their governments – is helping build the governance conditions required to reverse recent declines in living standards, provide stability and generate a return to growth.

It is also important to explore complementarity between trade, foreign aid and environment policy. Australia shares the views of many here that global economic growth and increased trading opportunities for all are critical in the creation of an enabling environment to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. We particularly emphasise the positive role that global trade liberalisation – especially agricultural trade liberalization – would play as an engine for sustainable development in developing countries.

On 28 April 2004, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, delivered a statement to the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

on key elements for sustainable development. An extract from the statement follows:

This 12th session of the Commission for Sustainable Development, together with CSD 13, will set the scene for how we do business for many years to come. It is important that we get it right. The review on progress with water, sanitation and human settlements has been valuable in exchanging experiences and challenges. I have followed reports of the policy and technical exchanges with interest.

Partnerships

I have also been impressed by reports of the Partnerships Fair.

We agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that we need to create more partnerships – both private and public.

We should also acknowledge the concerns of some developing countries and work harder to build confidence in the capacity of partnerships to deliver practical and substantial results. Mr Chairman, I suggest that an outcome of this CSD 12 review process is for CSD 13 to focus efforts on how partnerships can release the energies, capital and management skills of the private sector in support of the JPOI and the MDGs.

ODA and market approaches to MDGs

I understand that the relationship of ODA and market approaches has been a matter for some comment over the last few days.

The Millennium Development Goals have been agreed – and reaffirmed in Johannesburg. We are agreed that the route to achieving those goals is primarily a matter for individual countries.

Australia is committed to ODA – our percentage contribution is above the average OECD level. ODA is essential for supporting developing countries – particularly those that have the poorest populations or the most difficult circumstances – but ODA will only ever be a small proportion of the effort required.

We have heard how ODA that is not responsive to local demand can be well meaning but wasted. We have also heard how ODA that simply subsidizes suppliers – rather than empowers poor consumers – may have perverse outcomes.

Market approaches to the development goals will also be important for all countries. The private sector is best placed to mobilize funds for water and sanitation services, whether directly or in public-private partnerships.

Moreover, a well-structured and stable market for water and sanitation services remains the most efficient means of allocating resources in response to direct demands from consumers. While there are occasions where market approaches will not be realistic, we should always test that judgment given their benefits.

We have heard in this review process that we should not underestimate the value of freeing up local entrepreneurs – within an appropriate and stable regulatory framework that protects the environment.

The capacity of local entrepreneurs to respond to local demands – for example, the personal privacy in sanitation required by women in many developing countries – is a key message that has come out of this review session.

Mr Chairman, CSD 13 could also be where we think more on how to encourage market-based approaches to meeting the MDGs. In doing so, we should have regard to the specific challenges faced by small island developing states such as those in the Pacific Island Forum group.

Trade liberalization

Market responses are not just at the national or local level. Global markets must also be liberalized. The international community can do more than provide ODA, develop partnerships or monitor progress.

The capacity of developing countries to achieve their MDGs will be hampered unless the international community works to deliver agricultural trade liberalization.

Australia’s commitment to supporting our partner countries reflects this sentiment.

Sustainable Development – Water Resource Management

On 29 April 2004, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, delivered a statement to the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

regarding freshwater resource management. An extract from the statement follows:

My country has some features of water resources that are similar to many developing countries. Australia is the driest continent. Droughts and variable rainfall are natural features of our landscape. Around 75% of Australia’s managed water is used in irrigated agriculture – quite comparable with many developing countries.

Irrigation has given Australia enormous economic and social gains. For example, output from the irrigation heartland of Australia – the Murray-Darling River Basin – is around US$7.5 billion a year. This is nearly one third of the value of Australia’s total annual agriculture output. However, we now know that there have been downside environmental impacts.

Altered flow patterns in the rivers, together with associated land use change, resulted in increased salinity of our rivers and our land, toxic algal blooms, and reduced biodiversity.

These problems arose because the science of farming our land was not well established or understood. Water was regarded as a free environmental good with no distinct value.

Policy response – the National Water Initiative

Our response has been to place value on ecological ecosystems – and water in particular – and to establish governance arrangements to achieve integrated natural resource management.

Setting the regulatory framework that encourages the market to place a value on water drives increased private investment in water efficiency and technological change. This leads to increased agricultural productivity while using less water – we get more “more crop for the drop”.

…

We heard from the UNDP

this morning the importance of setting national targets and benchmarking. In Australia we expect to develop targets and benchmarks also at a local level – a level that communities can understand and engage.

Natural ecological systems – such as watersheds and aquifers – define the right level of water planning and of integration with other natural resource planning. In Australia we have over 50 geographical water planning regions. In some cases these are then aggregated to large basin level as with our Murray-Darling River systems.

Water sharing plans will set secure environmental outcomes – integrated with wider natural resource use planning that promotes sustainable agriculture and protects environmental assets. We will ensure that responsibility for allocating and managing water for ecological systems is clearly specified.

Conclusions

Through Australia’s National Water Initiative we are now:

• planning for integrated water resource management

• establishing robust and effective water governance arrangements; and

• recognizing and supporting communities of users, and other interested parties.

We know one size does not fit all countries.

As countries develop their Integrated Water Resource Management programs, there may be aspects of Australia’s experience that are useful. I would be happy to share them in more detail with individual countries.

Mr Chairman: As we look forward to CSD 13, we should consider carefully how CSD 13 might set the directions for taking such a country by country approach to Integrated Water Resource Management.

Let me say that the approaches we are taking in Australia are scaleable – where they are relevant to other countries’ circumstances, they could be modified. For example, assisting communities of water users and others to identify objectives for catchments could be a foundation step.

While some of Australia’s measures are not immediately relevant to all developing countries, we believe that our emphasis on the market to generate wealth and allocate resources should be considered seriously by all. While there are circumstances in some countries that would mean market approaches will not be realistic, we should always test that judgment given their benefits. Certainly, where water is used for economic production, a market approach to water management should be given serious thought. We have heard this week that poverty is as much a rural issue as it is an urban issue.

Rural poverty is a driver for urban migration. Creating security of access to water resources for irrigated production, and developing water markets, should help alleviate rural poverty.

Whaling – Amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

On 7 December 2004, the Amendments, done at Sorrento, Italy on 22 July 2004, to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

United Nations Convention Against Corruption, done at Washington on 2 December 1946, were tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The amendments done at the 56th annual meeting of the Commission maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling, and modify the provisions for aboriginal subsistence whaling in the Northern Hemisphere. Australia does not propose to lodge an objection to these amendments therefore no binding treaty action is required.

The Commission notified Contracting Governments on 30 July 2004 of the amendments, advising that, if no objections were lodged, the amendments would come into force generally on 28 October 2004 and that if objections were lodged before 28 October 2004 the amendments would come into force for those countries that had not lodged an objection on 26 January 2005. No objections were lodged with the Commission before 28 October 2004 and, therefore, the amendments came into force for Australia on that date.

…

The amendments to the Schedule to the Convention maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling and modify the provisions for aboriginal subsistence whaling. This is in the national interest because Australia is a strong opponent of commercial whaling, but supports the access of some indigenous communities to whales and whaling to meet demonstrated traditional, cultural and nutritional needs.

Whaling – Commercial Whaling

On 10 March 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release concerning commercial whaling. An extract from the release follows:

Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, today welcomed the publication and the important findings of a review into modern whaling activities.

“Australia has long insisted that commercial whaling is unacceptable, because there is no truly humane method of killing a whale,” Dr Kemp said.

“These latest results vindicate our position.”

Dr Kemp was referring to the release today of `Troubled Waters: A Review of the Welfare Implications of Modern Whaling Activities’, published by a coalition of over 140 animal welfare societies in 57 countries. It assessed the available evidence on whale killing methods and concludes that modern whaling operations give rise to serious welfare concerns.

“Australia seeks an end to commercial whaling, not only because it is no longer required to meet essential human needs, but also because we are convinced that the methods used to kill whales involve an unacceptable level of cruelty,” Dr Kemp said.

“I put that argument to the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Berlin in June 2003, and we will do so again this year, in light of the damning evidence in this publication.”

The report shows that around 1 of every 5 North Atlantic minke whales struck by Norwegian whalers, and 3 of every 5 Antarctic minke whales struck by Japanese whalers, were not killed instantaneously. Some animals took over 40 minutes to die after being struck by the harpoon.

Whaling – Scientific Whaling

On 21 July 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release attacking ‘scientific whale slaughter’. An extract from the release follows:

The Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell

, today attacked Japan and Iceland over plans to increase the slaughter of whales under the guise of scientific research.

He called on Japan and Iceland to abandon the practice, which next year will result in the killing of about 850 whales of various species.

“This generation has a responsibility to rebuild the health of the world’s oceans,” Senator Campbell

said. “Saving whales is an iconic representation of that work.

“Killing whales in the name of science is an affront to science. It is not science – it is commercial slaughter.”

Senator Campbell

made the call as member nations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) were meeting in Sorrento, Italy.

During the 56th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, on 19-22 July 2004, Dr Conall O’Connell, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, delivered a statement to the International Whaling Commission entitled “25 years of whale protection in Australia”. An extract from the statement follows:

With this commitment, 25 years ago, the Australia Government decided to bring whaling in our waters to an end, and to pursue an international ban on commercial whaling. Over the past 25 years, Australia has made a very successful transition away from hunting whales and towards protecting them.

At the 31st annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (London, July 1979), Australia tabled the findings of an independent National Inquiry into Whales and Whaling. The Inquiry, under Sir Sydney Frost, had held a series of public hearings, received evidence from 101 organisations and 73 individuals, and consulted 28 experts based outside Australia – many of whom were active in the IWC.

Its report addressed the uncertain status of the remaining whale populations, the biology and intelligence of whales, whaling economics, and the humaneness of whale hunts. The conclusion was “that Australia’s policy should be changed, and that Australia should oppose the continuance of whaling, both within Australia and also abroad.”

The Government accepted the recommendations of the National Inquiry, introduced new legislation to protect whales, and transferred this policy responsibility from the ministerial portfolio for primary industry to the environment portfolio.

While Australia’s policy on whaling changed 25 years ago, Australia remained an active member of the IWC and Australians continued to lend their expertise to the Scientific Committee. Whereas once Australia contributed to the decline of whale populations, now we are proud to contribute to the collective response – to do everything within our means to provide sanctuary to whales, and to facilitate the recovery of all whale populations.

Strengthening the conservation agenda

The establishment of a Conservation Committee through Resolution 2003-1 was a major milestone for the Commission. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

provides for both conservation and management of whale stocks. Australia recognises both of these provisions and believes the establishment of the Conservation Committee does not prevent the fulfilment of either of these objectives.

As Australia stated at IWC 55, the effect of Resolution 2003-1 was to recognise the key developments in interpreting and applying the object and purpose of the 1946 Convention, to acknowledge and clarify the important role of our Commission in the future.

Australia is optimistic that the Conservation Committee will enable the IWC to strengthen its conservation agenda by rationalising the Commission’s work on that part of its agenda that deals with conservation issues, as well as institutionalising and better distributing the Commission’s workload.

In Australia’s view, the Committee creates an opportunity for all IWC members to address issues of real concern to the conservation of whale stocks. As the Committee identified at its inaugural meeting, these include endangered species and populations, human impacts (which might include pollution, ship strikes, bycatch/entanglement and strandings), habitat protection, best practice guidelines for whale watching, monitoring and reporting systems relevant to conservation of whales, and legal and regulatory arrangements for cetacean conservation.

Whale sanctuaries

The Australian Government remains committed to whale sanctuaries. Australia’s own Exclusive Economic Zone has been a whale Sanctuary since 2000, and we welcome news that since the Commission last met, the Government of our neighbour New Caledonia took a similar decision, to declare sanctuary for whales in its waters.

This announcement takes the current national-level sanctuary coverage in the South Pacific to approximately 13.5 million square kilometres. This is an important step towards achieving the target of 20 million square kilometres in island-state national whale sanctuaries by 2007, outlined in the Action Plan for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

As a result of the ongoing support from our region, Australia joins New Zealand in re-submitting the proposal that the Commission honours the wishes of the people of the South Pacific and creates a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. We remain convinced of the scientific justification of protecting whales in their breeding grounds.

A South Pacific Whale Sanctuary would effectively conserve whales, as well as provide increased opportunities and economic benefits through whale watching, foster research, and increase knowledge and public awareness about whales in the region. We also support the establishment of a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary, to protect whales in another part of their Southern Hemisphere range.

Australia maintains its strong support for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and is of the view is that the Sanctuary needs to be retained so that it can continue to meet the objectives for which it was established. If the provision is to contribute to “the recovery of whale stocks,” ten years of protection is next to nothing in the life cycle of many whales.

Whaling

Australia has made it clear that we oppose the resumption of commercial whaling and the adoption of any Revised Management Scheme that would make that possible – because of the cruelty and distress involved, and because it is not required to meet human needs. Australia remains concerned that, while the moratorium on commercial whaling remains in place, some member Governments nonetheless continue to authorise whaling operations for commercial benefit.

Since the Commission last met, a small group has met behind closed doors to discuss the future of IWC management regimes. Australia calls for such discussions to be conducted in a transparent manner, and open to the participation of all member Governments and interested observers.

Lethal research on whales is unnecessary to inform management procedures under the IWC. Australia agrees with many scientists who stated at IWC 55 that this practice is equivalent to commercial whaling or culling, which is prohibited.

It does not appear that those Governments which issue special permits for lethal research have acknowledged the scientific criticism and the view of the Commission as a whole, as expressed through Resolutions, calling for them to cease issuing such permits. Instead, the whaling operations continue, for commercial benefit, and regrettably the total number of whales taken by IWC members continues to increase.

There is no merit to the argument that culling whales is a way to improve commercial fish stocks, nor to the proposition that the only way to gather information on the diet and ecology of whales is by killing them and cutting open their stomachs.

Australia is, of course, interested in the relationship between whales and the ecosystems in which they play an essential role. However, our biologists have developed and use non-lethal techniques to obtain this information. These advances in non-lethal techniques highlight the lack of scientific basis or benefit in scientific whaling.

While Australia opposes commercial whaling of any description, we consistently join the consensus in the IWC in favour of the ongoing limited access of some indigenous communities to whaling for traditional subsistence purposes. In our view, this exception needs to be based on strict criteria, which limits access to communities whose traditional, cultural and dietary needs have been recognised by the Commission. Any revision of these provisions should only be done with great care.

Whale watching

Whale watching is the ideal way to achieve the optimum and sustainable utilisation of whales. In Australia’s view, the International Whaling Commission is the appropriate international forum to monitor the management and growth of this industry.

Commercial whaling was for generations a major component of Australia’s economy and society. Over the past 25 years, whale watching has come to take whaling’s place. Many of the favoured locations for watching whales are the sites of former whaling stations, and some of the guides and volunteers are the sons and daughters of the old whalers.

The 25th anniversary of Australia’s decision to bring whaling to an end in our waters is a fitting occasion for an independent update of the value of whale watching to Australia, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Asia Pacific) has commissioned a report, which Australia will table at this year’s meeting for the information of fellow members.

This study has concluded that whale watching in Australia is growing at an even faster rate than previously estimated, and its expansion has accelerated over the past decade. It found that twice as many (approximately 1.6 million) tourists engaged in whale watching in 2003 than in 1998. Direct revenues from the whale watching industry doubled in that period, while indirect revenue is estimated to have increased four-fold.

The success of this industry puts beyond a shadow of doubt that whales in Australia are now considered more valuable alive than dead. Our economy gains hundreds of millions of dollars per year, while the exercise also helps raise awareness of whales and their oceanic habitat.

World Heritage Areas

On 5 November 2004, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

, issued a press release on World Heritage conservation. An extract from the release follows:

An Australia-wide package of $16.4 million from the Howard Government’s $3 billion Natural Heritage Trust will help conserve our internationally-acclaimed World Heritage places, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell

said.

“This investment ensures that Australia will continue as a world leader in World Heritage conservation, and brings total Australian Government funding to World Heritage properties to more than $100million since 1996,” Senator Campbell

said.

“This increased funding, allocated for 2004-05 and 2005-06, underlines the Australian Government’s continued commitment to meeting its international World Heritage obligations and supporting State Governments in managing these important areas.

“The Australian Government has allocated the funds strategically to ensure that our priorities for World Heritage management are achieved.

XI. Disputes

Cyprus

On 2 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the Cyprus

dispute. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the UN Secretary-General’s final plan to settle the Cyprus

dispute, and express the strong hope that the people of Cyprus will accept it. The plan was presented at the conclusion of a week of talks in Switzerland between leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities and the Greek and Turkish Governments.

The Secretary-General’s plan calls for a federal government composed of two constituent states both largely running their own affairs. The Secretary-General has said that the plan is workable, fair and provides Cypriots with a secure framework for a common future.

Australia is a longstanding supporter of efforts to achieve a settlement to the Cyprus

dispute. We have maintained a police presence on Cyprus since 1964 and our Special Envoy to Cyprus, the Hon. Jim Short, has provided a valuable Australian contribution to international efforts to achieve a settlement.

On 27 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the referenda results in Cyprus

. An extract from the release follows:

As a longstanding supporter of efforts to settle the Cyprus

dispute Australia is disappointed that Cyprus will not be reunited in time for its accession to the European Union on 1 May.

Australia, however, respects the results of the referenda held on 24 April by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities, in which only the Turkish Cypriot community accepted the settlement plan put forward by the UN Secretary-General.

Australia appreciates the extensive efforts made by the UN Secretary-General to find a settlement to the dispute.

I welcome the discussions by EU foreign ministers following the Cyprus

referenda, who are considering how to ensure that all Cypriots can benefit from the economic, political and security benefits that EU membership provides.

Australia will continue to follow developments in Cyprus

and will remain supportive of all efforts to achieve a reunited and peaceful Cyprus.

India

and Pakistan

On 7 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the India

-Pakistan

talks. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome the historic agreement between Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to open a dialogue next month on bilateral issues including Jammu and Kashmir. The statesmanship displayed by both leaders in pursuit of peace is worthy of congratulations and praise.

The formal meeting between Indian and Pakistani leaders on the margins of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit held in Islamabad earlier this week was their first since 2001. It followed a range of confidence-building measures and other steps undertaken by both countries over the past year.

I urge the two countries to conduct the dialogue in a spirit of understanding and cooperation.

On 24 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding Australia’s dialogue with Pakistan

. An extract from the release follows:

I held successful meetings with the President of Pakistan

, General Pervez Musharraf, and Iran’s Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, at the World Economic Forum meetings in Switzerland

today.

During my meeting with President Musharraf, I reiterated Australia’s appreciation for his government’s strong cooperation in the war on terrorism.

I welcomed recent positive developments in Pakistan’s relationship with India

, including their agreement to commence dialogue and to sustain the ceasefire along the Line of Control. I encouraged General Musharraf to continue with these efforts.

Australia has followed closely political developments in Pakistan

. While positive steps have been taken, I urged General Musharraf to push ahead with a reformist legislative program based on his vision of Pakistan as a modern and moderate Islamic state.

On 19 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to the India

-Pakistan

dialogue. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome the news that officials from India

and Pakistan

have successfully concluded three days of talks in Islamabad, agreeing on a roadmap for future discussions towards resolving the issues that divide them.

The roadmap provides a timetable that includes Foreign Secretaries’ talks in May/June to discuss Kashmir among other issues, and a meeting of Foreign Ministers in August.

This is the latest in a series of positive steps taken by the two sides, beginning in April last year, to reduce tensions and rebuild mutual confidence.

Leaders in both countries have shown courage and imagination in pursuing the path of dialogue. I encourage governments in both India

and Pakistan

to maintain the momentum in this process.

Indonesia – Aceh

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to the situation in Aceh

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

The Australian Government believes that a negotiated outcome to the conflict in Aceh

is the best way to meet the aspirations of the Acehnese within a united Republic of Indonesia. The Government has called on all sides to respect human rights, including the release of any hostages.

Middle East

On 25 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Israel-Australia Chamber of Commerce in Jerusalem, Israel, on the situation in the Middle East

. An extract from the statement follows:

We remain hopeful that the new strategic environment created by the coalition’s actions in Iraq will lead to greater peace and security for you and for all the peoples of the region.

Australia has consistently supported international efforts to resolve the Israel

-Palestine

conflict. But –as Israel knows –Australia sees no value in wasting the time and energy of the UN General Assembly with ultimately unproductive resolutions.

Australia is a strong supporter of the Roadmap to Middle East

peace as the way forward. The Roadmap sets out the necessary steps for peaceful resolution of the conflict and the realisation of two states –Israel

and Palestine

–living side by side in peace. We urge both parties to get back on the Roadmap without delay –to take the necessary actions required by the Roadmap –with courage and resolve.

Our support for the Roadmap to Middle East

peace does not qualify our support for Israel

. The best long-term guarantee of Israel’s security is a viable, democratic Palestinian state. Statehood is also the legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people. But to realise it the Palestinians must act to end the terror of the suicide/homicide bombers. The Roadmap leaves no doubt about their obligation to do so.

Australia calls on Israel

to play its part to make the Roadmap work by meeting all its obligations with regard to the settlements. We welcome Prime Minister Sharon’s recent reiteration of his determination to do so.

Australia will remain a strong supporter of the cause for peace and will continue to look for ways we can support the Roadmap.

On 30 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. An extract from the release follows:

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the appalling suicide-homicide bomb attack in Jerusalem which has killed at least 10 people. Most of the victims were commuters travelling to work. Our thoughts are with their families and friends.

The terrorist

group Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade has claimed responsibility for this murderous act. There can be no justification for such indiscriminate attempts to kill and maim civilians.

I note that the Palestinian Authority has condemned the attack. But words are not enough – the Palestinian Authority must take firm action against the terrorists.

Australia recognises Israel’s right to take strong defensive measures in order to protect itself from attacks like this. But, as I reiterated during my recent visit to the Middle East

, Australia remains committed to a negotiated solution of this tragic conflict.

The Roadmap to Middle East

Peace still represents the best hope of achieving this and I call on both sides to find a way to resume its implementation.

On 10 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice regarding Israel

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Australia recognises Israel’s 4 June 1967 borders, including what is often referred to as West Jerusalem.

On 23 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to the Israeli

-Palestinian conflict. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

Israel

has now confirmed responsibility for the death of the Hamas

founder and so-called spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in Gaza yesterday. As I have consistently said, this government strongly supports Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The government listed it as a proscribed organisation for the purposes of asset freezing in December 2001. On 9 December 2003 Hamas’s military wing was proscribed under separate criminal legislation, which makes membership of the Hamas military wing here in Australia illegal. Hamas has used suicide bombers to target and murder many innocent Israelis. Sheik Ahmed Yassin supported these actions—he said so on many occasions.

Having said all that, let me make it clear that I do regret the use of targeted assassinations. This government does not support targeted assassinations. I am concerned that the killing of such a high-profile Palestinian leader will simply lead to further violence and the loss of innocent life—not that we, of course, would in any way condone that. The perspective of the Australian government is to urge calm and to call on both sides to exercise maximum restraint at this difficult time. Violence, after all, will not settle the Middle East

dispute. The long-term interests of both sides rest in the resumption of negotiations under the internationally endorsed road map and building on what was agreed initially in the road map.

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning human rights and the conflict in the Middle East

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia urges Israel

and the Palestinian Authority to return without delay to the negotiating table in order to put an end to the tragic cycle of violence and loss of innocent life. The suffering has gone on far too long. The Palestinian Authority must take action now to end the terrible suicide bombings and incitement to further bloodshed. Australia supports Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism

, including through the construction of a security barrier. But we do not support targeted assassinations and we call on Israel to ensure that its defensive measures do not unnecessarily increase Palestinian hardship, do not exacerbate current tension and do not pre-empt final status negotiations on borders. Israel and the Palestinian Authority must rapidly resume cooperation in order to realise the achievable goal of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders.

Australia contributed more than $11 million in humanitarian aid for the Palestinian Territories and refugees in 2003-04, and this contribution is part of an estimated $12 million in Australian humanitarian assistance to support Palestinian refugees over 2004/05.

Australia also increased annual funding for international humanitarian, emergency and refugee programs by $13 million to $146 million in the May budget.

On 3 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice concerning Israeli

military operations in Rafah. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

On 20 May 2004, the Australian Ambassador to Israel

, while re-stating support for Israel’s right to defend itself, expressed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs deep concern at the number of civilian casualties in Rafah; urged restraint on both sides; and urged Israel to ensure that its defensive measures did not unnecessarily increase Palestinian hardship.

On 3 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to United Nations Security Council 1544 and the conflict in the Middle East

. Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

(1) UNSCR 1544 was passed in response to Israeli

military actions in the Gaza Strip in May. The Australian Government supports Israel’s right to defend itself from attack, but is deeply concerned at the impact of military operations which have resulted in civilian deaths and the demolition of a substantial number of homes in Rafah. The Government has consistently urged Israel, most recently on 20 May through our Ambassador in Tel Aviv, to ensure that its defensive measures do not unnecessarily increase Palestinian hardship.

(2) Australia will continue to support a negotiated, peaceful resolution of the Israeli

-Palestinian conflict that respects the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

(3) Since January 2000 there have been no occasions of cooperation between the Israeli

and Australian Defence forces. Contacts between the ADF and IDF have been limited to liaison, visits and dialogue on naval issues, including submarine escape and rescue.

On 31 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding poverty in the Palestinian Territories. An extract from the release follows:

Australia is providing $8 million over three years to implement the Middle East

NGO Cooperation Agreements (AMENCA), an initiative that seeks to reduce the vulnerability of Palestinians to poverty and conflict.

The NGO Cooperation Agreements form part of Australia’s three-year Middle East

Development Cooperation Strategy, which commenced in July this year.

It is designed to support the Middle East

peace process by decreasing the vulnerability of Palestinians to poverty and conflict, strengthen the capacity of Palestinian institutions to provide essential services for their people, and support peace-building efforts.

The aid will focus on high priority areas of development including income generation, support for vulnerable groups including women and children, and sustainable agriculture.

By supporting Australian NGOs to help develop the peace-building within Palestinian society, the Australian Government aims to maximise the impact of Australian humanitarian funding in the Palestinian Territories.

Australian NGOs will be invited to submit proposals for projects that address peace-building activities, increase self-reliance, and help in the delivery of essential services.

This initiative complements Australia’s efforts to strengthen the capacity of Palestinian institutions to provide essential services, such as education, health and shelter to Palestinian refugees

.

On 1 September 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to the Beersheba suicide bombings. An extract from the release follows:

I condemn the appalling suicide bombings in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba which killed 16 people, including a 3-year old child. Most of the victims were commuters on their way to the central market. Our thoughts are with their families and friends.

Hamas

has claimed responsibility for this murderous act. There can be no justification for the indiscriminate killing and maiming of innocent civilians. I note that the Palestinian Authority has also condemned the attack. It must also take firm action against terrorists.

Australia remains committed to a negotiated solution of this tragic conflict. The Roadmap to Middle East

Peace still represents the best hope of achieving this and I call on both sides to find a way to resume its implementation as a matter of urgency.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee concerning the human rights situation in the Middle East

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia continues to be deeply concerned about the appalling violence and loss of life flowing from the lack of progress in resolving the Middle East

conflict and urges Israel

and the Palestinian Authority to implement the Quartet’s Roadmap to Middle East peace. We welcome Prime Minister Sharon’s proposed withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank; but this, too, must be consistent with the requirements of the Roadmap and thereby give impetus to the peace process.

On 11 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the death of Yasser Arafat. An extract from the release follows:

I wish to express my condolences upon the death of Chairman Yasser Arafat in Paris. Mr Arafat was the most significant and influential leader of his people over the many years of their struggle for a Palestinian state.

We did not always agree with his ideas on how to achieve security and stability in the turbulent Middle East, but we acknowledge his unswerving commitment to his people.

We also recognise the historic role he played, along with late Israeli

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in signing the Oslo Peace Accords in Washington in 1993.

We now look to Mr Arafat’s successor to find new opportunities for peace with Israel

. Mr Arafat made the crucial start to what Australians and many others around the world hope will become a secure, independent Palestinian state living at peace with its neighbours.

On 30 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th Session of the General Assembly regarding the situation in the Middle East. Extracts from the statement follow:

Last year when Australia spoke under this item, we had many grave concerns over the situation in the Middle East

. One year later, we deeply regret that we have not seen the changes we all hoped for. As the grim Israeli

-Palestinian dispute grinds on, the Middle East continues to experience the evils of terrorism. Such appalling acts as the bomb attacks against Israeli holiday-makers in Egypt have been rightly condemned by governments around the world and here in the United Nations. It remains imperative that we work together decisively to eradicate that scourge.

The Australian Government has expressed its condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of Mr Yasser Arafat. A fitting tribute to Mr Arafat would be the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace, security and prosperity alongside Israel. It is to that end we all must now work, with a sense of renewed energy and commitment. If we do not, the lives and hopes of the people of the region will be further degraded, not least by continuing growth of extremism and terrorism. It is incumbent on us all to help the parties to the dispute to seize the opportunity presented by a change of political leadership among the Palestinians to move forward.

The Roadmap to Middle East Peace provides a way forward. Its implementation has been delayed and many of its time lines have already passed. But it offers the best hope for the peace we need. Australia will continue to urge the parties to meet their commitments clearly outlined in the Roadmap and to establish the sense of mutual trust and confidence necessary for progress. We will continue to speak out for the patient and sustained negotiations needed to resolve issues that have for so long divided the Israeli and Palestinian people. The Australian government stands ready to offer a tangible contribution to moving the process forward to the outcome we all seek.

Nepal

On 25 March 2004, Ms Caroline Millar, Head of Australian Delegation to the 60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, delivered a statement to the Commission on Human Rights concerning the situation in Nepal

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia also regrets the decision of the Maoist insurgents unilaterally to withdraw from peace talks with the Government of Nepal

. We call on the Maoists and the Government of Nepal to redouble efforts to achieve a durable political settlement and avoid human rights abuses.

Sri Lanka

On 3 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to human rights in Sri Lanka

.

Question

(12) Can Mr Downer

explain the Australian Government’s position on (a) whether the Tamils quest for self-rule is the legitimate right of a people who have struggled for over half a century to determine their political status, (b) the divisions within the Sinhala political/religious establishments in Sri Lanka

over resolving the Tamil question peacefully, (c) whether the LTTE has received a mandate at the 2 April general elections to represent the Tamils at the negotiating table, (d) the decision by the Government of Sri Lanka on 4 September 2002 to lift the ban on the LTTE, and (e) the recent statements made by the present Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka to the effect that the LTTE will be recognised by the Government of Sri Lanka as the sole representative of the Tamils.

(13) Will the Australian Government (a) lift its ban on the LTTE, and (b) encourage the Sri Lanka

n Government to negotiate with the LTTE in an honest and constructive manner; if so, when.

(14) What action will he take to encourage the LTTE to maintain the peace process in the face of resistance to any form of power-sharing with the Tamils by many Sinhalese hard-liners and Buddhist monks.

An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Answer

(12) The Government supports the negotiation of a durable settlement that promotes and protects the rights of all Sri Lanka

ns within a united country. The Government does not take a position on the precise nature of that settlement nor the steps in the process towards achieving it. These are matters for the parties to determine between them.

(13) (a) No. (b) The Government urges the parties to restart the peace process without further delay and to negotiate constructively towards a durable settlement that safeguards the interests of all Sri Lanka

ns.

(14) The Government will continue to urge the parties to restart the peace process without further delay and to negotiate a peace settlement that safeguards the interests of all Sri Lanka

ns.

Sudan

On 17 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to Australian humanitarian assistance for Sudan

. An extract from the release follows:

The Australian Government is providing $5 million to help meet the immediate needs of internally displaced people in Darfur

, southwest Sudan

.

Australian assistance will help protect vulnerable populations in the face of widespread violence and human rights

abuse and deliver emergency food supplies and shelter prior to Sudan’s wet season.

Australia’s contribution follows a revised United Nations Consolidated Appeal and is being channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Programme and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs who are best placed to deliver this assistance.

Without help from the international community, already vulnerable populations in Darfur

are likely to face famine in the wet season, when rains make it extremely difficult to deliver food aid to the remote areas of Sudan

.

Australia stands ready to consider further requests for humanitarian assistance.

Twenty years of internal conflict in Sudan

has driven over 4.1 million people, including 1 million in Darfur

, from their homes, fleeing years of indiscriminate violence, disease and the deliberate destruction of livelihoods.

This is the world’s largest internally displaced population and a situation described as the worst humanitarian crisis today.

Australia is committed to assisting the most world’s most vulnerable, including those affected by disaster and conflict.

This is reflected in the 2004-05 budget, where Australia is providing increased funding for international humanitarian, emergency and refugee programs.

On 25 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff, issued a joint statement regarding the humanitarian situation in Sudan

. An extract from the statement follows:

We are appalled and outraged by the humanitarian and human rights disaster now taking place in the Darfur

region of Sudan

. This tragedy is the responsibility of the Government of Sudan, and the result of the Government’s failure to take action against the Janjaweed militia.

I (Alexander Downer

) have already expressed my grave concern directly to the Sudanese Foreign Minister, and called on the Sudanese Government to fulfil its responsibility for the well-being and security of its own people.

We strongly endorse the similar call by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. We call on the members of the Security Council to pass a resolution resulting in effective, practical action to stop the flow of weapons to Darfur

; the imposition of realistic sanctions against the Government of Sudan

; and support for the planned deployment of the African Union

.

We will do what we can to ease the suffering of the people of Sudan

. We will announce shortly and separately increases in our humanitarian assistance. We will keep this tragic situation under active review.

We will each consider what further action our governments can take to put pressure on the Government of Sudan

to act immediately and effectively to bring this unnecessary catastrophe under control.

On 27 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on Australian humanitarian assistance for Sudan

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia is providing an additional $12 million in humanitarian assistance to help relieve the terrible human crisis in Sudan

.

This takes Australia’s humanitarian funding to $20 million, demonstrating the Australian Government’s deep concern about the situation in the Darfur

region of Western Sudan

.

The Government is actively engaged in humanitarian and political efforts to solve this crisis and prevent further suffering caused by needless conflict.

Australia has already provided $8 million to UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Australian NGOs, to deliver urgently needed assistance to Sudanese refugees. The additional funding reflects the scale of the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur

region.

More than 1 million internally displaced people need help in Darfur

and more than 180,000 refugees

have crossed the border into Chad as a result of conflict.

Many of these refugees

are women and children, including over 20,000 who are less than five years of age, and therefore are at extreme risk from hunger and disease, as well as shortages of clean water and adequate shelter.

Early contributions totalling $6 million will be made to the World Food Programme and the United Nations

Children’s Fund to provide urgent assistance to those most in need.

The remaining funds will be allocated through UN and other humanitarian relief agencies to cover other needs including the protection of populations at risk. Australia will consult closely with relief agencies working in the area to ensure funding is directed to the highest priorities.

Australia is actively encouraging and supporting action by the United Nations and will continue to support international efforts to end the conflict and alleviate the human suffering and gross human rights abuses in Sudan

.

If the humanitarian efforts of the international community are to be effective, it is essential that the Sudanese Government fulfils immediately the commitments it has made to disarm the Janjaweed militia, remove restrictions on humanitarian access, permit the deployment of human rights monitors and bring human rights abuses to an end.

On 4 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to the conflict in Sudan

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

The government has been appalled by the humanitarian and human rights disaster of Sudan

. We do need to distinguish between the civil war in southern Sudan, which is nearing—we hope—settlement after 20 years, and the current emergency which is taking place in the western part of Sudan in Darfur

. The Darfur crisis has left an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people dead, and that figure comes from the United Nations. There are about 1.2 million people who have been displaced, 200,000 of those people in Chad, and the security and humanitarian situation there is still deteriorating.

The government responded to the crisis in May with a $5 million contribution to humanitarian assistance, followed by a further $3 million contribution in June. Last Tuesday I announced a further $12 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. Today I can confirm that $9 million of that will go to the World Food Program and UNICEF, and the remaining funds will be channelled through other relief agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Oxfam and World Vision. These funds from Australia will provide emergency food, water supplies, sanitation and health care for the victims. I have written to Sudan’s foreign minister to express Australia’s deep concern about the situation. The Australian government has said on a number of occasions that we will consider requests for defence and other support that has been mandated by the United Nations Security Council

.

The government welcomes the Security Council

resolution on Darfur

which was recently passed. We lobbied hard for the resolution because strong international pressure is needed to ensure that the government of Sudan

lives up to its promises. A resolution does set obligations which, if not met by Sudan’s government, will be backed by not just tougher diplomatic measures but tougher economic measures as well. It is vital for the United Nations this time, late as it may be, to take a strong stand against this egregious situation. We do not want to see a failure of the United Nations in dealing with a humanitarian crisis as we saw 10 years ago in the case of Rwanda. We look to the Sudanese government to meet its obligations under the resolution. I must say that we are concerned that the head of the Sudanese army has said that he regards the resolution from the Security Council as a declaration of war. The Sudanese government should be under no illusions about the seriousness with which the international community sees this situation. It must respond quickly and it must respond meaningfully.

On 30 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice concerning Australia’s representations to the United Nations General Assembly and the conflict in Sudan

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

(1) As of 22 July 2004, the Government had made no initiatives or representations in the UN General Assembly, in relation to the crisis in Darfur

, Sudan

. The situation in Darfur has been dealt with by the UN Security Council

.

On 14 July, in an open debate in the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, Australia, with New Zealand and Canada, called on the Security Council to take immediate action to end the war crimes

and crimes against humanity being committed in Darfur

. On 30 July the Security Council adopted Resolution 1556 on Darfur, which calls on the Government of Sudan

to end human rights violations in Darfur, imposes an arms embargo on the region and calls for international support for an African Union

deployment in the region. The resolution includes the provision for stronger measures against the Government of Sudan if it fails to take serious steps to disarm the Janjaweed militias within 30 days and prosecute those responsible for human rights violations. Australia lobbied vigorously in support of the resolution. During negotiations over the text of the resolution and in the lead-up to the vote, the Government made frequent representations to Security Council members, urging them to support a strongly worded resolution.

(2) Working with like-minded countries, the Government will continue to make representations to Security Council members to urge them to take action necessary to end the crisis in Sudan

.

On 30 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations 59th Session General Debate concerning the situation in Darfur

An extract from the statement follows:

The situation in Darfur

is a humanitarian disaster. Australia is committed to supporting urgent international efforts to end this horrific crisis. We have already committed $A20 million in emergency assistance for the people of Darfur. Australia welcomes the adoption of UNSCR 1564, and applauds the African Union for agreeing to lead a mission to Darfur. We stand ready to offer assistance to this mission. The situation in Darfur underlines the need for the international community to develop a better framework for responding to humanitarian crises. We hope the High-Level Panel will come up with clear and workable recommendations on humanitarian intervention.

On 1 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Committee on human rights and the conflict in Sudan

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is also deeply concerned by the ongoing humanitarian and human rights disaster in Darfur

, western Sudan

. The world has seen horrific atrocities, including indiscriminate killing and mass rape being used as a means of terror. We urge the Sudanese Government to comply with its international commitments and take action to disarm militias and prevent further violence.

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question on notice in relation to Australia’s representations to the Sudanese government and the conflict in Sudan

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

Question

The Government has made the following representations on the crisis in Darfur

:

On 3 February 2003 the Minister for Foreign Affairs first expressed Australia’s concerns about the deteriorating situation in Darfur

to the Sudanese Ambassador.

On 14 June 2004 Australia, Canada and New Zealand urged the UN Security Council to take immediate action to end the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed in Darfur

.

On 21 June 2004 the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to the Sudanese Foreign Minister expressing Australia’s deep concern over the crisis in Darfur

and urging the Sudanese Government to end the widespread abuses of human rights, restore peace and ensure the distribution of international aid to the victims of the conflict.

On 27-30 July 2004 Australia, with Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand, made representations to UN Security Council members urging them to support a strongly-worded resolution on the situation in Darfur

. On 30 July the Security Council adopted Resolution 1556.

During August 2004 the Government made representations to regional organisations and countries with influence in Sudan

and the region, urging them to pressure Sudan into complying with UN Security Council Resolution 1556.

Since July 2004 the Government has been consulting regularly with likeminded countries to find ways to ease the crisis in Darfur

.

On 19 November 2004, H E Mr George Atkin, High Commissioner to Kenya, delivered a statement to a special session of the United Nations Security Council convened in Nairobi on behalf of Australia and New Zealand concerning the situation in Sudan

. An extract from the statement follows:

The governments of New Zealand and Australia continue to be gravely concerned about the ongoing conflicts in Sudan

and the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights conditions in Darfur

. We welcome this special meeting of the Security Council in Nairobi and we urge the Council to take every possible step to resolve the conflicts in Sudan, which have had a terrible impact on people throughout the country.

With respect to the North/South conflict we commend the Security Council

’s efforts to support the urgent conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement. After 21 years of civil war, the current negotiations offer a real opportunity for a comprehensive political solution for the problems in Sudan

. The devastating conflict in Darfur

is glaring evidence of the risks of continued instability and there is no time to waste. We are heartened by the signature this morning of the “Memorandum of Understanding” to conclude a final settlement by the end of this year and we urge the Council to maintain pressure on all parties at this critical stage.

Our countries are deeply concerned at reports that the situation in Darfur

is deteriorating yet further. We are appalled by reports of horrific atrocities committed against the civilian population of Darfur in recent months.

Let me be clear that we look to all parties to the conflict to prevent immediately further attacks on civilians. We welcome the agreement on humanitarian and security protocols reached between the Government of Sudan

, the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement and call on the parties to implement their commitments without delay. The parties must be under no illusion about the seriousness with which the international community sees the situation in Darfur

, and must respond quickly and meaningfully.

Our countries are making a contribution to international efforts to resolve the crisis in Sudan

through the provision of substantial funding for UN operations, support for the African Union

’s mission and humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict.

We applaud the African Union

for its proactive role in resolving the crisis in Darfur

, and welcome the decision to expand the African Union’s monitoring mission to Darfur. The international community must make every effort to ensure the success of the African Union mission to Darfur.

Our governments offer their full support to the African Union

mission.

The governments of New Zealand and Australia will continue to support efforts to find a lasting solution to the multiple crises in Sudan

. Only sustained, coordinated international action will bring these conflicts to an end.

XII. Law of Armed Conflict and Security Matters

Armed Conflict – Iraq

– Multilateralism

On 4 June 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the National Press Club, Washington DC, on the situation in Iraq

. Extracts from the speech follow:

Australia contributed military forces to the combat phase of the operation in Iraq

, and we’ve left forces there, and we intend to leave them there until the job assigned to them has been completed. I’m very strongly of the view that this is not the time for any weakening of the associations and the attitudes and the objectives that took certain countries to take the action they did in March of last year.

…

I share the concern that people have understandably expressed about some of the events of the past two months, but the opportunity that we now have to build on the transfer to the interim government, the opportunity we now have to see for the first time since the operation was undertaken last year, Iraqis

readily identified with their people, speaking on behalf of their country, speaking as representatives of, albeit an interim, Iraqi government, but nonetheless a government that is going to pave the way for the elections to be held at the beginning of next year.

I believe that is an opportunity to see a new phase and to shift the emphasis of the perspective that the world brings to Iraq

to a more positive vantage point. We have to ask ourselves of course what is the alternative. And the answer to that is a very ready one. There is really, for our sakes, no alternative other than to make a success of what has been undertaken. Those who suggested more than a year ago that undertaking an operation against Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war against terrorism can scarcely be heard to mount that argument today. Because whatever may have been the connections between terrorism and Saddam Hussein in March of 2003, it can scarcely be doubted that international terrorism is currently investing an enormous amount in trying to frustrate the objectives of the coalition and more importantly the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people for a democratic future. A failure by the coalition in Iraq would represent a victory for international terrorism of absolutely monumental proportions and that is a reality that I believe has to be kept in mind even by the fiercest critics of the action taken by the coalition.

I believe of course that the challenge faced by the coalition is a challenge that will have a profound impact on the future development of relations between the states of the Middle East

. If we can see democracy develop in Iraq

it will I believe represent a very, very significant example for future activity and future response in that part of the world.

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled “International Security – Making Progress in Uncertain Times”. Extracts from the speech follow:

The 28 June handover of power to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his government was a historic moment for Iraq

and the world.

With the resumption of sovereignty, Iraqis

have the opportunity to build a democratic and prosperous nation.

…

And the Coalition has made steady gains in the delivery of essential services to the Iraqi

people – in a climate of sabotage.

The Australian Government is proud to have played its part in these efforts.

…

But we should not fool ourselves that this will be easy.

Terrorists have placed Iraq

at the forefront of their evil campaign against the West and mainstream Islam.

…

To cut and run from Iraq

now would be the height of irresponsibility.

To cut and run would not just be a snub to the requests of the interim Government. It would deliver terrorists a victory with terrible consequences for us all. Not only would it turn Iraq

into a terrorist haven. Those terrorists would be emboldened to strike out more and more.

The Australian Government recognises the need to stay the course. The peace, stability and prosperity of the Middle East

are in all our interests.

…

UN efforts will continue to be crucial, particularly its advice on the national political conference in July, drafting of a new constitution and helping Iraqis

prepare for elections in 2005.

Other members of the international community must also now come forward to support the Iraqi

Government with the practical assistance and resources the UN needs to fulfil its mandate to support Iraq’s political transition and rehabilitation.

… and to build on the sound progress made by the Iraqis

and the Coalition Provisional Authority prior to 28 June.

Armed Conflict – Iraq

– Post-Conflict Rehabilitation

On 25 January 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release in relation to Iraq

and the World Economic Forum. Extracts from the release follow:

Senior Iraqi

leaders have painted a picture of increasing stability and opportunity in Iraq during my meetings at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

I held discussions with Iraq’s Interim Governing Council Member and current Council President, Mr Pachachi, interim Foreign Minister Mr Zebari, and interim Minister of Planning and Development Cooperation, Mr Al-Hafedh.

The overwhelming view of the ministers was that Iraq’s security situation had improved since the capture of Saddam Hussein. While tragically Iraqi

civilians –and members of the coalition –continue to die at the hands of terrorists, attacks are fewer and less frequent. And terrorists increasingly find themselves isolated from the desires and aspirations of ordinary Iraqis.

On 11 February 2004, the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile

, issued a press release concerning Australian

companies in Iraq

. Extracts from the release follow:

Trade Minister Mark Vaile

today said Australian companies were well placed to secure a share of the US$18.6 billion newly allocated by the US Government for Iraq

reconstruction following discussions with Retired Rear Admiral David Nash, Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Program Management Office.

Minister Vaile

and Admiral Nash were speaking at the Iraq

Roundtable, a business seminar designed to update experienced Australian companies on prospects offered by the US-funded Iraq reconstruction program. More than 60 leading Australian companies attended the roundtable, which was organised by Austrade, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAid.

“This roundtable is part of a concerted effort by the Australian Government to ensure local companies have the tools and knowledge they need to secure significant contracts in Iraq

. Agencies like Austrade will continue working closely with these companies to give them the best possible chance of success.”

Since the end of major hostilities last May, Australian companies have won contracts in agriculture, environmental rehabilitation, electricity distribution, finance and economic policy.

On 8 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning Australian involvement in Iraq

. Extracts from the release follow:

Today I release a public paper that aims to help inform Australians about our nation’s involvement in the liberation and rehabilitation of Iraq

.

Iraq

– The Path Ahead has been produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is a substantial, yet accessible, document that will help inform the public debate about Australia’s and the international community’s role in helping Iraq move forward.

…

The paper deals with the complexity of the tasks that the international community faces in helping Iraq

. Despite the familiar images of violence in Iraq, a massive effort is underway to rebuild Iraq after decades of neglect and oppression.

Iraq

– The Path Ahead lays out the strong commitment of Australia and the other Coalition countries to help the Iraqis regain the freedom, prosperity and stability denied them for so long.

Australia has contributed significantly to Iraq’s stabilisation and rehabilitation. We have provided much needed funds and material help. We have helped to build momentum for support in the international community, including in the United Nations

.

Our most valuable contribution has been to send highly professional military and civilian experts to Iraq

to help the Iraqi people resume authority over their country. I hope the paper will focus the debate on the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people themselves, as well as the broader security issues.

This paper makes clear the Coalition’s aims and articulates the principles that guide the international community as we help Iraq

along the path to democracy and prosperity.

The journey will be difficult. But by staying the course and helping resourceful and resilient Iraqis

, we are paving the way for Iraq to regain its rightful place in the community of nations.

To this end, we have committed more than $A125 million, much of it directed through the UN.

On 28 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release in relation to the transfer of full authority to the Iraqi

Interim Government in Iraq. Extracts from the release follow:

Today’s transfer of full authority to the sovereign Iraqi

Interim Government in Baghdad is an historic step forward for the people of Iraq. With the resumption of sovereignty, Iraqis will have the opportunity to build a democratic and prosperous nation.

…

The handover also marks the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I congratulate Ambassador Bremer and all CPA staff on their efforts to assist Iraq’s recovery from three and a half decades of tyranny.

Australia

has played an important role in preparing Iraq

for this day. I want to thank the dedicated Australian military and civilian personnel whose considerable efforts in difficult and dangerous circumstances have helped support Iraq’s stabilisation and rehabilitation.

On 30 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia

to the United Nations

in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations 59th Session General Debate in relation to Iraq

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Success will depend on the resolute support of the international community.

We cannot allow terrorists to disrupt the democratic process in Iraq

.

While the difficult security conditions in Iraq

cannot be denied, it is imperative that the UN fulfil its role under UNSCR 1546 and work with Iraqis to complete arrangements for the elections on time.

The size of the UN’s presence in Iraq

must be commensurate with the importance and urgency of its task.

For its part, Australia

remains committed to assisting Iraq

transform itself.

On 14 October 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill

, issued a joint press release on Australian

assistance to the Fijian Deployment to Iraq

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia

strongly supports UN efforts to establish a significant presence in Iraq

, involving the full range of agencies and with appropriate security protection.

Australia

welcomes Fiji’s contribution to United Nations

Assistance Mission for Iraq

and is pleased to support them through the provision of equipment and training.

We are keen to ensure the UN can deploy sufficient personnel to fulfil its mandate to advise and support the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq

on the process for holding elections.

We strongly encourage the international community to support the Iraqi

people on their path to democracy.

On 14 October 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the Tokyo donor’s meeting. Extracts from the release follow:

I welcome the successful meeting in Tokyo of donors contributing to the rehabilitation of Iraq

, which concluded this evening.

The meeting represents an important further step in galvanising international support for Iraq’s reconstruction. 57 countries and organisations, including Iraq’s neighbours and major donors, attended.

The Tokyo donors’ meeting has taken place exactly one year after the initial Donors’ Conference in Madrid, at which some US

$33 billion in grants and loans was pledged by the international community to help Iraq

along the path to political stability and economic prosperity.

Australia

has contributed more than $125 million to the rehabilitation of Iraq

, of which more than $100 million has been disbursed.

The meeting was particularly significant, since for the first time the Iraqi

Interim Government has been represented at a donors’ meeting on Iraq and has presented to donors its own vision and strategy for Iraq.

…

Iraq

faces many challenges in pursuing economic reconstruction, and Australia

encourages all donors to work with and support Iraq in implementing its national strategy, including through early disbursement of pledges.

Australia’s contribution to the UN and World Bank International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq

stands at $25 million, money which will be directed to building good governance in Iraq and assisting the agriculture sector, the electoral process, and refugees

and internally displaced persons. Australia

has fulfilled its obligation to transfer its promised funding to the multilateral trust funds.

Maintaining the election timetable is an important step in Iraq’s transition to democracy. To this end, I call on the United Nations

to engage comprehensively in the elections process, including by increasing its staff numbers on the ground.

On 30 November 2004, Senator John Tierney

, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian

Delegation to the United Nations

in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

concerning the situation in the Middle East

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia

, together with its Coalition partners, remains firmly committed to the stabilisation and rehabilitation of Iraq

, despite the actions of insurgents who seek to destroy the Iraqi people’s hopes for peace, stability and economic growth. We congratulate the Iraqi Interim Government on its steadfast progress towards democratic rule. We encourage the international community to support Iraqis as they seek to create freedom and prosperity, and welcome the support expressed for Iraq at the Sharm el-Sheik conference. We urge all nations to support the 30 January 2005 elections which will provide the opportunity for Iraqis to elect, freely and fairly, the government of their choice. Australia will not falter in its support and assistance to Iraq as it journeys towards a stable democracy governed by the rule of law.

The situation in the Middle East

today remains a major challenge for its leaders and the wider international community. But we should not see terrorist

acts, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other calamities as insurmountable problems. Now more than ever it is vital that the international community and the United Nations

work together to overcome the destructive forces in the Middle East and to build a better future for all its peoples.

Armed Conflict – Iraq

– Security Council

Resolution 1546

On 9 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming UN Security Council

Resolution 1546 on Iraq

. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome the unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council

of a landmark resolution on Iraq

. The resolution marks the beginning of a new era in Iraq.

It underscores the steady progress in building a peaceful and prosperous future for Iraq

. And it underwrites that plan into the future.

The Security Council

notes the end of Iraq’s occupation and endorses the formation of a new Interim Government of Iraq

which will assume full sovereignty, authority and responsibility for governing Iraq by 30 June 2004. The Council also endorses the timetable for Iraq’s transition to democratic government agreed by the Iraqis themselves in the landmark Transitional Administrative Law adopted on 8 March. The significant input of the Iraqis themselves, especially the Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari, is particularly welcome.

The resolution defines a significant role for the UN in supporting Iraq’s political transition, including in planning for national elections. Australia strongly supports the UN’s role.

The resolution recognises the continuing security challenges in Iraq

, and the need for international support to keep the political transition on track. It also acknowledges that arrangements are being put in place to establish a new partnership between the multinational force and the Interim Iraqi Government and to ensure effective coordination.

The Security Council’s action underscores the imperative of the broad international community lending its support to the new Iraqi

Government and assisting Iraq’s stabilisation and reconstruction. Regardless of countries’ past differences, a stable and prosperous Iraq is in everyone’s interests.

Biological Weapons – Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee regarding the Biological Weapons Convention. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia is committed to efforts to strengthen implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention. With Indonesia we plan in February 2005 to co-host a regional workshop on national implementation of the BWC.

Conventional Weapons – Anti-Personnel Mines

On 19 October 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the UN in Geneva, delivered a statement to the First Committee on anti-personnel mines. An extract from the statement follows:

As a strong supporter of the Mine Ban Convention, Australia welcomes the recent accession of Estonia and Papua New Guinea. As Co-Chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Australia will continue to promote awareness and encourage support of activities addressing the needs of mine victims. We are pleased to co-sponsor the draft resolution entitled ‘Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction’.

Australia welcomes the conclusion of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. We look forward to the early commencement of negotiations on a new instrument to address humanitarian concerns associated with mines other than anti-personnel mines. Australian is pleased to co-sponsor the draft resolution entitled .The Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.

On 29 October 2004, Mr Rod Sawford MP, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Fourth Committee on the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Extracts from the statement follow:

As a strong supporter of the Ottawa Convention, Australia is pleased to note that more than three quarters of the world’s nations have now embraced it. We welcome this significant show of support for the Convention and its goals and look forward to the accession of more nations in the future.

Universalisation of the Convention is a primary goal for the Australian Government.

…

We must all continue to look for ways to provide support to those countries that wish to become party to the Convention. We are disappointed that a consensus was not reached on the recent draft Mine Action resolution at UNGA 59.

Within our immediate region, we welcome the accession of East Timor to the Convention, and its ratification by Papua New Guinea.

…

With A$97 million expended on mine action activities since January 1996, the Australian Government will fully meet its pledge of A$100 million to mine action activities for the decade 1996 – 2005. Australia’s mine action assistance has focused on building indigenous capacity for mine clearance, assisting mine victims and promoting mine awareness.

…

The majority of Australia’s humanitarian demining activity is focused on countries in the Asia-Pacific region, many of which suffer the highest burden of mines and unexploded ordnance in the world. In 2003-04 we provided more than A$7.5 million to mine action programs in various countries focusing on demining, mine risk education, victim assistance and integrated programs. We also provided A$1.3 million for mine focussed assistance to Afghanistan in 2003-04.

Conventional Weapons – Small Arms

On 15 June 2004, H.E Mr Peter Tesch

, Chargé d’affaires of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Open-Ended Working Group to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons in relation to small arms proliferation. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia welcomes the establishment of this Open-Ended Working Group to negotiate an instrument on tracing. Working together, we can take a significant step forward in the implementation of the UN Program of Action and strengthening the international framework concerning the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

…

Australia is committed to working with other countries and civil society to address the challenge of small arms proliferation. Australia has focused its efforts on the small arms problem in the Asia-Pacific region.

Effective implementation of the Programme of Action remains a priority in the South Pacific. Through the involvement of law enforcement officials, we have supported the efforts of the Pacific Islands Forum to develop a common regional approach to weapons control, called the “Nadi Framework”.

On the basis of the Nadi Framework, Pacific Island leaders endorsed a Model Weapons Control Bill at the Pacific Island Forum in August 2003. This includes provisions governing marking and record-keeping for civilian and security force weapons, as well as border controls.

…

Australia sees cooperation – domestically, regionally and globally – as the key. The Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Organisation all cooperate closely with their regional counterparts on customs, law enforcement and the establishment of networks for information sharing.

Australia supports increased transparency to build confidence in our region and internationally.

Australia makes available specific information on international arms transfers to other states and encourages reciprocity.

…

The report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on tracing illicit small arms and light weapons provides a strong basis for the open-ended working group’s work.

Australia supports a legally binding instrument on tracing. Such an instrument would build on and reinforce the obligations relating to marking and tracing in the Program of Action and in the Firearms Protocol. It would strengthen existing institutions and processes for international cooperation in tracing. As a priority, it should seek to improve the means of tracing small arms and light weapons used in conflict situations and in terrorist activities.

On 19 October 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the UN in Geneva, delivered a statement to the First Committee on small arms proliferation. An extract from the statement follows:

We are pleased to co-sponsor the draft resolution entitled ‘The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects’.

Australia has been an active player in supporting measures to curb the illicit small arms trade.

In particular, we have been working closely with regional partners to address the challenge of small arms proliferation in the Pacific region. This year Australia collaborated with Fiji, Japan and the UN Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific in holding a regional small arms seminar focused on implementation of the UN Program of Action and on model weapons control legislation developed by the Pacific Islands Forum. The seminar was an important step in a sustained effort by Australia to bring about better regulation and practices to deal with the most serious proliferation issue in our region.

Australia welcomes the considerable progress to date in negotiations for an instrument on marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons and looks forward to a successful conclusion to the negotiations. We recognize also the importance of regulating the activities of arms brokers in order to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

Defence Cooperation – United States

of America

On 7 July 2004, the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill

, delivered a statement to the US-Australia Ministerial Press Conference in Washington, DC concerning US-Australia defence cooperation. Extracts from the statement follow:

The relationship is critically important to Australia – the U.S-Australian relationship. We think it’s as strong as it’s ever been. We found ourselves working closely together in operations in recent years and have found that the relationship from an inter-government perspective is reflected on the ground in a very close and meaningful way.

…

Joint operations have meant we’ve learned a lot about interoperability but we’ve also recognized where we can do better in that regard and we are committed to further enhance our capabilities in terms of joint operations through a range of different interoperability initiatives.

In relation to training, […] we realize that we can further enhance the training of the ADF through working more closely with the United States and taking advantage of some of the more sophisticated instrumented ranges and simulation, and they in turn feel that they can take further advantage by using, when appropriate, some of our training facilities.

…

Our new technologies have now made possible the ability to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, whether it’s defending troops on the ground or larger areas, and we think it’s important that Australia invest in those new technologies and we’ll be working with the United States to identify specific projects that we can work on together in order that we can make a contribution and that we can fully gain, […] from these new technologies.

Defence Cooperation – United States

of America – Memorandum of Understanding on Missile Defence

On 30 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to AUSMIN and its outcomes. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

We, Senator Hill

and I, held AUSMIN, the Australia-US

ministerial meeting, on 7 July in Washington. We had meetings predominantly with secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met with Attorney-General Ashcroft, and both Senator Hill and I spent a useful time with Vice-President Cheney. During the meeting [Senator Robert Hill and United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] signed a memorandum of understanding on missile defence, which is a long term measure to counter potential threats to the United States and its allies from missiles from rogue states. We reached agreement with the United States on the Australia-United States joint combined training centre. Very importantly, there was a heavy focus in those discussions, as you would expect, on counter-terrorism in South-East Asia, the Pacific and of course the Middle East.

Humanitarian Assistance

On 11 November 2004, Mr Rod Sawford MP, Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation in New York, delivered a statement to the Plenary of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly concerning the coordination of humanitarian assistance. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia continues to provide rapid and generous support for the survivors of crises and disasters both within our region and globally. We contribute to relief efforts for emergencies wherever they occur, but our highest priority is the Asia Pacific – a region that is often ravaged by natural disasters and is not immune to conflict.

Member states are focusing on how best to ensure the most effective response to humanitarian needs. I would like to highlight seven of the issues Australia considers essential to this.

First, protect civilians.

…

Second, improve security and access for humanitarian personnel. […] The challenge is to manage the risk effectively. We know that the Secretary General has also made this a priority in his consideration of new measures to ensure the safety of UN personnel.

Third, integrate humanitarian assistance into the broader UN response to complex emergencies, but in a way that upholds humanitarian principles. More needs to be done to better define, assess and operationalise integrated missions. Australia is pleased to be supporting the joint OCHA/ DPKO/ UNDG review addressing just these issues.

Fourth, use humanitarian response to lay the groundwork for recovery and reconstruction.

…

Fifth, find more effective ways to respond to natural disasters: to prevent, prepare for, and mitigate their effects and to integrate disaster risk reduction into national development strategies – a key point for next year’s World Conference in Japan.

Sixth, strengthen further the system for humanitarian coordination.

…

Lastly, ensure that gender aspects are properly assessed and integrated into the planning, implementation and evaluation of humanitarian action.

…

We look forward to continuing to work with OCHA and other humanitarian actors within and outside the UN system.

Humanitarian Intervention – Civilians in Conflict

On 15 June 2004, Mr Allen Rock, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand to the United Nations Security Council

Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict concerning the protection of civilians in conflict. Extracts from the statement follow:

I will devote my remarks today to the Security Council’s role in protecting civilians in armed conflict. The record shows that over the last five years, the Council has made critical strides in adopting a range of measures that recognize the complex nature of contemporary conflict and the fact that the plight of civilians must be effectively addressed as a part of any comprehensive international response.

However, despite this progress, the international community has in past months witnessed the deliberate targeting, displacement and abuse of civilians by parties to more than two dozen conflicts, all displaying a shocking disregard for international human rights

and humanitarian law

. Abuse of those no longer taking active part in hostilities has likewise been manifest.

Recent experience has also reinforced the fact that peace agreements do not, in and of themselves, provide sufficient protection to civilian populations.

In December 2003, this Council re-affirmed its central commitment to civilian protection and asserted its intent to use the aide memoire and the ten-point plan then before it to make Council responses more effective. […] Regrettably, we can only conclude that a significant gap remains between the Council’s commitments and concrete action.

First, we note that lack of access and lack of security remain the greatest obstacles to effective humanitarian action, obstacles that this Council, at least in part, has the authority to publicly recognize. The Council and the General Assembly have it within their power to declare any country where UN and Associated staff operate to be of exceptional risk. Such a decision would provide those personnel with enhanced legal protections.

Second, there are instances where the Council has failed to use certain tools at its disposal to improve conditions on the ground.

…

These problems are worsened by the absence of monitoring mechanisms to enforce arms embargoes, and by the Council’s all-too-infrequent use of both monitoring and embargoes to suppress conflict and sanction those who would seek benefit from the economy of war.

Third, the Council’s failure to systematically condemn widespread instances of sexual and gender-based violence in specific conflicts also means that actions to address such violence – including improved monitoring and reporting and physical protection – remain unsupported.

Fourth, is the fact that the Council continues to resist responding to conflicts of which it is not formally seized, despite documented evidence in many cases grave violations of human rights

and humanitarian law

. This sends a troubling message with respect to impunity and compliance with international norms.

…

The Security Council’s moral authority is underpinned by its willingness to respond effectively and promptly to threats to international peace and security, and it must demonstrate greater resolve in addressing even sensitive and politically challenging situations. We stress that some of the key tools required for a more effective response are already at the disposal of the Council. We encourage the Secretary-General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator to continue to bring to the Council’s attention serious situations that are not on its formal agenda.

…

In urging more resolute action, we also hope to prompt more creative efforts. We recognize that not all actions can or should be public. Other measures can be considered, such as discreet Council fact-finding missions and communications between the Council President and respective parties to conflict.

…

We fully endorse the Secretary-General’s call for the Security Council

to commission a study aimed at improving the monitoring and reporting of cross-border issues in crisis and in post conflict situations. With reliable data, the Council, in partnership with regional actors, will be better placed to respond in a more effective and timely manner to violence against civilians. A key issue that must be addressed in this regard is the presence of armed elements and combatants in refugee camps and settlements, and its potential to undermine regional stability.

…

A culture of protection also requires that attacks against civilians are recognized for the crimes that they are and duly prosecuted. The Security Council

and Member States have a particular responsibility to ensure that those who commit crimes against civilians engaged in UN operations are brought to justice. In this regard, we strongly support the continuing efforts to expand the scope of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel to ensure that all civilian personnel engaged in UN operations are able to benefit from the protections of this Convention.

Humanitarian Intervention – Responsibility to Protect

On 13 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law entitled “Harnessing the International System for Peace and Prosperity”. Extracts from the speech follow:

Humanitarian intervention is an evolving principle, mooted as a legal basis for intervening to achieve humanitarian goals and, as such, is but one of the legal bases for intervention for that purpose.

Other legal bases can include UN Security Council Resolutions or formal invitations by States.

…

Since 1945 the UN, through the Security Council, has had the capacity to authorise the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security, which, as we now accept, can clearly be threatened by widespread human rights violations.

…

The end of the Cold War has brought a substantial change in the concept of humanitarian intervention and its practice.

Multilateral intervention has, on occasions, successfully come to the aid of those in need. In this respect there has been a growing number of UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII.

However, the UN is at times unable to respond directly in an effective and timely way. And this is where some form of legal authority to intervene must be developed to fill the gap.

In this respect, while not yet an established norm in customary international law, the principle of humanitarian intervention has clearly emerged as an influential factor in determining the responses of members of the international community in situations where inaction would result in massive human rights violations.

…

We should support international efforts to address these issues in a helpful and productive way, to ensure that we get a sensible result which is workable and flexible, but which also provides protection from self-interested interventions which cannot be justified by reference to humanitarian circumstances.

Australia welcomed the formation late last year of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

We are strongly supporting this process – providing $100,000 to fund its activities and contributing Australian expertise.

We hope the work of the panel can make an important contribution to the ongoing consideration of humanitarian intervention and related issues of international law.

Australia contributed to the panel on regional experiences in peace-keeping and peace-building in the Pacific, drawing on our experience of cooperative intervention in Solomon Islands.

…

I would like to note in particular the work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty – or ICISS, an initiative of the Canadian government headed by my predecessor Gareth Evans and Kofi Annan’s Special Adviser Mohamed Sahnoun.

In December 2001, the ICISS issued a report titled “Responsibility to Protect”, which proposed that the duality caused by rigid views of international law and the unavoidable reality of mass human suffering could be bridged via an emerging international obligation – “the responsibility to protect”.

The Report proposed that States should have an implied international obligation to intervene in the affairs of other States to avert or stop humanitarian crises, where first-tier responsibility, namely the UN Security Council, is abdicated, or cannot be exercised.

…

The Report provides a useful intellectual framework for developing further international dialogue on the issue of our response to humanitarian crises.

It also helpfully reflects the practical realities we face in addressing situations of concern.

Our own experience of intervening in the cases of Bougainville and Solomon Islands in a responsible and legal manner – but outside formal UN auspices – underlines this.

…

Australia’s leadership – in response to a request for assistance from the Solomon Islands government – had to be based on regional consensus and collective action – and so it was…

… with a formal request for intervention from the Solomon Islands Government, endorsement by Foreign Ministers of Pacific Islands Forum countries, a multilateral treaty between Solomon Islands and contributing nations, including Australia, and domestic enabling legislation in Solomon Islands.

The resulting Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands – RAMSI

– has helped reverse the decline since its arrival in June 2003.

The action we are taking in Solomon Islands builds upon our experience in Bougainville, where Australia has worked closely with New Zealand in support of regional-level efforts for a peaceful end to a conflict among competing internal parties – again at the formal request of the government of Papua New Guinea.

These were problems which could be dealt with effectively through regional efforts.

But the success of these efforts has been because States were able to take timely action and were unimpeded by limits otherwise existing in the international system in its current form – veto powers and all.

Having said this, it is important to note that what was done in the regional cases I have outlined above was done on the basis of recognised principles of international law.

International Atomic Energy Agency

– IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources

On 8 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Asia-Pacific conference on nuclear safeguards and security entitled “Protecting against nuclear and radiological terrorism: a comprehensive approach”. An extract from the speech follows:

The international standard for safe and secure use of sources was established in 2003 when the IAEA

Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources was adopted.

Australia is implementing all the requirements of the Code.

Our task now is to ensure the Code is universally applied.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is working with regional countries to improve and strengthen regulatory controls and physical security on sources.

Australia has set aside $4.4 million over three years to implement this program in South-East Asia and the Pacific.

We welcome the assistance that the IAEA

and the US International Radiological Threat Reduction Program are providing in rendering sealed radioactive sources safe and secure, and in securing orphaned radioactive sources.

International Atomic Energy Agency

– Strengthened Safeguards System

On 29 April 2004, Mr David Mason, Deputy Head of the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Vienna, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference in relation to the Strengthened Safeguards System. Extracts from the statement follow:

Safeguards obligations are not static and the Agency’s safeguards system has undergone considerable evolution since the NPT entered into force more than three decades ago. The strengthened safeguards system is the latest manifestation of this evolution. Australia and many others are of the firm view that the “Agency’s safeguards system” which non-nuclear weapon state NPT Parties are obliged to accept comprises the Additional Protocol together with a comprehensive safeguards agreement.

…

It is of deep concern that 44 NPT parties are yet to fulfil the basic obligation of concluding a comprehensive safeguards agreement. The PrepCom should register the unacceptability of this situation and urge NPT parties yet to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements to do so without further delay.

…

Nuclear export controls play a central role in preventing the misuse of nuclear material, equipment and technology at the state, sub-state and individual level.

…

Export controls emphatically do not impede legitimate nuclear trade and cooperation. Rather they foster the necessary environment of long term assurance and stability necessary for peaceful nuclear cooperation.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee have developed harmonised nuclear export controls to provide a regulated framework to facilitate safe nuclear trade and cooperation while minimising the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. All NPT parties should ensure their controls on relevant items and technology are of a standard at least equivalent to the major nuclear export control regimes, and are strictly enforced. Nuclear suppliers should ensure they engage in nuclear transfers only where the recipient state has in place an adequate national system of nuclear security comprising NPT-related IAEA

safeguards, physical protection, measures to combat illicit trafficking, and rules and regulations for appropriate export controls in case of retransfers. We welcome adoption of the UN Security Council non-proliferation resolution which among other steps will require states to enact effective export controls.

…

Australia reaffirms that significant nuclear supply to non-nuclear weapon states should be based on their acceptance of fullscope IAEA

safeguards and we urge those suppliers that have not yet adopted the fullscope standard to do so without delay.

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency

’s Strengthened Safeguard System. An extract from the statement follows:

There should be no question of the urgency of universal application of the IAEA’s strengthened safeguards system – the Additional Protocol. We and many others are of the firm view that the IAEA

Additional Protocol, together with a comprehensive safeguards agreement, is the current safeguards standard required of non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT. An Additional Protocol in force should be a condition of nuclear supply by no later than the end of 2005.

Missiles – International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee on the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. An extract from the statement follows:

The link between WMD and ballistic missiles is widely acknowledged. Ballistic missile proliferation destabilises regional and global security and is inimical to progress towards nuclear disarmament. Australia is keen to see the ‘Hague’ Code of Conduct firmly established as a universal and viable confidence-building measure to help prevent ballistic missile proliferation.

Missiles – Man-portable Air Defence Systems

On 4 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming a United Nations First Committee resolution on MANPADS. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the unanimous passage through the United Nations First Committee of an Australian-initiated resolution that aims to prevent terrorists’ efforts to obtain weapons to shoot down civilian aircraft.

The resolution urges the global community to curb the production, stockpiling, transfer and brokering of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, better known as Man-portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS).

…

Australia initiated the resolution in recognition of the security threat posed by these weapons.

Peacekeeping

On 17 May 2004, H E Mr Peter Tesch

, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council concerning United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia has been a core contributor to these operations since they were first undertaken. Our contribution in East Timor

has been highly regarded and seems to demonstrate that we remain committed to carrying our share of the international peacekeeping burden. We are conscious, though, of growing difficulties we all face as demands for new peacekeeping resources increase. In this situation, different models of burden sharing have become more important – coalitions of the willing, for example, which do what blue helmet peacekeepers may not be able to.

In this respect, it could be instructive … to look closely at the efforts of regional countries in maintaining peace and security in their neighbourhoods. The Australian-led mission in the Solomon Islands

, to which most Pacific Island Forum countries have contributed, is an example of what can be achieved on a regional basis. The demand for more peacekeepers underlines the urgency of resolving long-standing disputes. Much more needs to be done on conflict prevention. And, as the Brahimi Report suggested, early intervention remains crucial if we are to avoid conflicts and prevent them from escalating. In all these areas we need to ask if we are doing enough.

It goes without saying that efficient and cost-effective management of peacekeeping operations is crucial.

…

We must create a culture of continuous improvement. We also have to hold peacekeepers to the highest standards of accountability. And we need to spare no effort to ensure the safety and security of peacekeepers and UN personnel.

…

The Security Council

also bears a heavy burden and must ensure that new missions have clear, well-designed mandates, adequate resources, and credible success and exit strategies. Genuine consultation with interested countries and with TCCs will help the Council get its strategies right. Governance issues need to be given careful thought. We have regularly advocated that justice and rule of law considerations be treated as core components of UN missions.

…

To help build effective rule of law institutions, we are developing an International Deployment Group of 500 Australian police available to participate in peacekeeping and law enforcement missions. We urge other member states to consider similar mechanisms.

Peacekeeping – Haiti

On 16 November 2004, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill

, answered a question on notice in relation to the situation in Haiti

. An extract from Mr Hill’s response follows:

(1) Australia recognises the interim president of Haiti

, Mr Boniface Alexandre.

(2) The Government welcomed the deployment of the international peace-keeping force authorised by United Nations Security Council resolution 1529, and its efforts to bring stability to Haiti

and to avoid a humanitarian crisis.

Peacekeeping – Solomon Islands

On 19 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the North Atlantic Council in Brussels entitled “Enhanced Cooperation with NATO

in a New Security Environment”. Extracts from the speech follow:

In the South West Pacific, Australia has for some time been concerned at the decline of effective governance and institutions and declining law and order, the result of years of public underinvestment, mismanagement, corruption, and neglect. In some cases it is because these countries lack the critical mass necessary to sustain all the functions of a sovereign government. These problems have brought some of our Pacific neighbours dangerously close to state failure. Such are the factors that are shaping the security environment in the Asia-Pacific, and that have shaped Australia’s foreign and security policies accordingly.

…

In the Solomon Islands, Australia was the genesis and driving force behind the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, or RAMSI

as we call it. Implemented with the strong support of the region, RAMSI has prevented Solomon Islands’ inexorable slide towards state failure. A policing operation, with military back-up, it aims also to implement much needed economic and governance reforms. RAMSI, together with our Enhanced Cooperation Partnership with Papua New Guinea and a new agreement on assistance to Nauru, mark a significant shift in Australia’s dealings with the South Pacific in an effort to halt decline in our immediate neighbourhood.

On 17 June 2004, Mr Nick Warner, Special Coordinator for the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, delivered a speech to the Pacific Islands Forum Regional Security Committee Meeting in Nadi entitled “Operation Helpem Fren: Biketawa’s First Success”. Extracts from the speech follow:

When Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakeza met the Australian Prime Minister John Howard

in June 2003 to discuss the possibility of external intervention, he represented a nation held hostage by fear and intimidation, and unable to find a way out of a desperate situation.

Forum Foreign Minsters, meeting in Sydney on 30 June last year, agreed that the extent of the problems facing Solomon Islands called for a concerted regional response, as envisaged in the Biketawa Declaration, and endorsed the provision of a package of strengthened assistance to Solomon Islands, including a policing operation to restore law and order, supported, as required, by armed peace-keepers, and a program of assistance to strengthen the justice system and restore the economy and basic services. This package would be implemented by an unprecedented cooperative effort that became known as the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.

…

RAMSI

has been a success because it was the right plan at the right time and we had the right team with the right approach with the right level of political backing, both from Solomon Islands

and the countries of the Pacific.

The full backing of the Pacific Islands Forum was vital to our success.

…

Operation Helpem Fren has clearly proved the value of the Biketawa Declaration. The success of the operation is a tribute to the willingness of Forum members to unite to resolve a crisis in a member state and demonstrates that significant progress can be achieved when we are united. This is the first time the countries of the region have worked together on such a large and multi-faceted mission. We have learned much from our experience and have established valuable networks and links across all contributing countries. The lessons learned and experience gained from Operation Helpem Fren stand the Forum in good stead to respond to any regional emergencies in the future.

On 25 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Christopher Ellison

and the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill

, issued a joint press release on the withdrawal of troops from the Solomon Islands

. Extracts from the release follow:

The Government has decided to withdraw further Australian Defence Force elements from the Solomon Islands

following continued progress in the restoration of law and order, Defence Minister Robert Hill

, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer

and Justice and Customs Minister Chris Ellison

announced today.

…

In August 2003 there were over 1700 military personnel serving in RAMSI

to support police. There are now 650 serving in the country. The ADF gradual drawdown commenced in November last year. The latest withdrawals will leave around 100 troops in Solomon Islands

at the end of August.

On 25 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the first anniversary of RAMSI

deployment. An extract from the release follows:

This weekend marks the first anniversary of one of Australia’s most ambitious and successful foreign policy enterprises.

One year ago, the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands

(RAMSI

) began deployment at the invitation of the Solomon Islands Government and under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Forum.

All Australians, and especially the men and women of RAMSI

, can be proud of the enormous progress made in restoring peace and security to Solomon Islands

.

…

RAMSI

and Solomon Islands police, supported by RAMSI military personnel, have restored security and the rule of law. Almost 4000 firearms have been collected and destroyed and nearly 3000 arrests made. Most of those responsible for the worst crimes in the 1998-2000 period are behind bars awaiting trial.

Government finances have been stabilised. Health and education services are being provided. Public servants are being paid on time. There are signs of economic recovery and the return of confidence and optimism.

Yet there can be no doubt that difficult challenges still lie ahead. RAMSI

is now working with the Solomon Islands

Government to improve governance and accountability, and reinvigorate the economy.

On 13 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law entitled “Harnessing the International System for Peace and Prosperity”. Extracts from the speech follow:

Transnational terrorism, the risks of WMD proliferation involving rogue States or non-State actors and the threats posed by weak and failing States underline for us an important fact – that international security today is indivisible… that is, what happens in one corner of the globe impacts on others – whether the Asia-Pacific, Europe, Africa or the Americas.

…

Our successes in East Timor, Solomon Islands and in building regional cooperation on counter-terrorism

are a testament to this approach and show that results can be achieved if States are prepared to harness the international system in a practical way.

…

Australia welcomed the formation late last year of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. We are strongly supporting this process – providing $100,000 to fund its activities and contributing Australian expertise.

…

Australia contributed to the panel on regional experiences in peace-keeping and peace-building in the Pacific, drawing on our experience of cooperative intervention in Solomon Islands

.

…

There were serious internal problems in Solomon Islands

in 2003. The country was at a cross roads – law and order had broken down, government institutions had ceased to function, corruption was rife, and the nation’s finances in a parlous state. A humanitarian crisis loomed.

The UN Security Council was never able to lead in responding to this threat to regional peace and security – Solomon Islands

’ diplomatic recognition of Taiwan precluded this. Australia’s leadership – in response to a request for assistance from the Solomon Islands government – had to be based on regional consensus and collective action – and so it was. With a formal request for intervention from the Solomon Islands Government, endorsement by Foreign Ministers of Pacific Islands Forum countries, a multilateral treaty between Solomon Islands and contributing nations, including Australia, and domestic enabling legislation in Solomon Islands.

The resulting Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands

– RAMSI

– has helped reverse the decline since its arrival in June 2003. The rule of law has been re-established, along with a functioning government and a degree of financial stability, though the task of implementing reforms will be a long-term one.

On 17 November 2004, Mr James Batley, RAMSI Special Coordinator, delivered a speech to the Solomon Islands

Government – Development Partners High Level Meeting in Honiara concerning the RAMSI deployment. Extracts from the speech follow:

It has been almost 16 months since RAMSI

arrived in Solomon Islands

at the invitation of the government and with the unanimous endorsement of the national Parliament. RAMSI’s impact in that time has been profound.

RAMSI’s focus in its first year was on two main areas: first, security and law and order; and second, the stabilization of government finances. There have been many significant achievements in both areas since the last Development Partners meeting. Respect for the rule of law has been re-established; the Royal Solomon Islands

Police has been purged and has started recruiting again after many years; a number of significant arrests and convictions have been secured; public servants are being paid on time; the government has started to regularise its debts and arrears; revenue is up strongly; and a balanced budget has been prepared for consideration by Parliament next week.

Law and order, and public finances, remain core priorities for RAMSI

.

…

Security, in its broadest sense, is inseparable from development. Seen in this way, the achievement of lasting security in Solomon Islands

continues to demand action on many fronts.

…

RAMSI’s key relationship in Solomon Islands

is with the elected government; we see our activities and programs as being consistent with, and indeed as supporting, the government’s own […]. At the same time we in RAMSI

maintain active and regular links with all sectors including in Parliament; the public sector; civil society including business and the NGOs; and provincial governments.

…

The peoples of this region are practical and pragmatic. Reflecting that, we do not seek to categorise RAMSI

into an international taxonomy of foreign interventions. While that could be a stimulating intellectual exercise, we will leave that to academics and commentators that come after us. RAMSI remains a unique regional solution to a regional problem. Our focus is on what actually works for us and for Solomon Islands

.

At their annual meeting in Apia, Samoa in August 2004, Forum leaders commended the significant progress made by RAMSI

[…]. Encouragingly, over the past year the number of regional countries providing personnel to RAMSI has increased.

On 16 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on Australia’s assistance for High Court Trials in Solomon Islands

. An extract from the release follows:

Australia is providing extensive support to assist the Solomon Islands

justice system in managing a big caseload arising from investigations of crimes committed over the five years before 2003.

The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands

(RAMSI

), through its multi-country Participating Police Force (PPF), has been working with the Solomon Islands police to investigate crimes committed during the period of ethnic tensions that began in 1998.

…

To date, more than 40 criminal trials have been set down to be heard in the High Court, with more cases expected as police investigations continue.

…

Since the arrival of RAMSI

in July 2003, Australia has provided an estimated $A49 million to strengthen justice agencies and to support the Solomon Islands

Prison Service. Australia’s development cooperation assistance for law and justice for 2004-05, including the program of enhanced assistance, is estimated at $A24 million.

On 19 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the conclusion of his Pacific visit. An extract from the release follows:

I have just concluded a very successful visit to the Pacific region, encompassing Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and New Zealand. The visit highlighted the enormous progress of our initiatives to help improve governance, security and living standards in the Pacific.

The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI

) and the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) with Papua New Guinea in particular demonstrate the strength of Australia’s commitment to our Pacific neighbours.

RAMSI has turned around the fortunes of the Solomon Islands over the past 18 months.

…

Australia remains committed to Solomon Islands for the long-term and is proud to be part of this successful regional initiative.

On 22 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill

, issued a joint press release on Australia’s military presence in the Solomon Islands

. Extracts from the release follow:

Following the tragic death of Adam Dunning, an Australian Federal Police Protective Service Officer serving with the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands

(RAMSI

), the Government has authorised the immediate redeployment of an ADF rapid response capability out of Townsville. An infantry company out of the 2nd Royal Australian Regiment will commence its redeployment tomorrow, 23 December.

This redeployment underscores the Government’s determination not to be intimidated and demonstrates its commitment to completing RAMSI’s mission in Solomon Islands

. The Prime Minister of Solomon Islands has been informed of this decision and fully supports it.

…

This strengthened military presence will support police in carrying out their work to complete the restoration of law and order in Solomon Islands

.

Regional Security

On 23 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on trilateral security talks to be held with Australia, Japan and the United States. An extract from the release follows:

Australia, Japan and the United States will hold trilateral security talks in Tokyo on Tuesday 3 February 2004. The talks will be the fifth round of the Trilateral Security Dialogue which commenced in August 2002. The dialogue provides a forum for high-level strategic discussion, reflecting our shared interests in international security and an appreciation of the contribution made by each country in the Asia-Pacific region

…

The talks will cover a range of global and regional security issues of mutual interest including the North Korean nuclear issue and reconstruction in Iraq.

On 27 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the International Law Conference in Adelaide on Australia’s response to regional conflict. Extracts from the speech follow:

Australia has been active in our region in addressing situations of conflict and humanitarian crisis. In doing so, we have had to be innovative and flexible in how we view and employ international law, tailoring our approach to the circumstances of the case. In some instances the UN system has functioned well to provide the international legal framework for responding to situations of conflict and crisis.

…

Our own experience demonstrates that regional responses to regional problems, underpinned by appropriate legal arrangements, can often work best. It is clear that in responding to international conflict and humanitarian crisis, the UN legal framework can play an important role. But equally it is clear that the UN does not have all the answers and we can not always look to the UN to provide solutions to conflict. As a collective organization representing 191 nation states it is often unwilling or unable to do all that is asked of it.

On 23 March 2004, Australia’s Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism, Mr Les Luck, delivered a speech to the National Security Australia 2004 Conference entitled “Counter-Terrorism: Regional Coordination and Cooperation”. An extract from the speech follows:

Australia’s counter-terrorism

efforts draw upon the broader international coalition against terrorism

, especially strategic partners like the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom which are committed to combating terrorism in Australia’s neighbourhood. We welcome their readiness to share this task with Australia and countries of the region as one of the front lines of international terrorism….”

On 18 June 2004, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the subject of regional security. Extracts from the speech follow:

Australia needs to use all available means to promote global and regional security. We use the multilateral system to advance our national interests in key security areas. But while Australia works with and through the United Nations where this is effective, we will not confine our interaction with particular institutional forms or processes as ends in themselves. The only real test is whether Australian interests and values are being well and truly served.

…

Our regional security response offers a good example of the Government’s flexibility in its instruments of national strategy. There are few more important tools at the present time than the network of nine bilateral counter-terrorism

arrangements Australia has put in place with regional neighbours. These underpin practical, operational-level cooperation between police, intelligence agencies, security authorities, customs and immigration services, defence forces, central banks and financial units. We are working especially closely with Indonesia on strengthening its law enforcement capacity and upgrading its security infrastructure.

…

The Government is also working to strengthen Australia’s security links in the Asia-Pacific region. We have an extensive network of defence relationships in Asia with counter-terrorism

cooperation of particular and growing importance.

Closer to home, Australia has entered a new phase in its strategic role in the Pacific – confident to lead, confident in what we offer, and confident we are seen as partners for progress.

…

This new Pacific partnership is based on our willingness to commit the resources needed for decisive action and our capacity to work with our Island neighbours to identify cooperative solutions to the region’s problems. Australia has a particular responsibility to help those countries struggling to secure the basic requirements of law and order.

…

I do not wish to understate the enormous challenges faced by many states on our doorstep. And I do not want to imply that we can simply transfer home grown solutions from Australia into completely different social, economic and political environments. But through an integrated set of measures targeted at enhancing security and strengthening governance we are determined to play our part in helping to foster stability and a brighter future in the Pacific.

On 30 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement during the General Debate segment of the 59th United Nations General Assembly regarding security in the Pacific. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia’s commitment to a stable and secure region is also reflected in our efforts in the Pacific.

When Australia’s Foreign Minister, the Honourable Alexander Downer

MP, addressed this forum last year, he noted Australia was developing regional approaches to confront the dangers of state failure …

… and that with our Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) partners – we were restoring hope to the people of Solomon Islands.

In just one year, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI

) has made excellent progress in restoring stability and law and consolidating government finances…

… and is now moving into long-term governance reform.

Australia is also working with other states in our region, notably Papua New Guinea

and Nauru

, to address economic management and governance issues…

… and regional cooperation is being strengthened through the Pacific Plan, an initiative of the recent Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Meeting in Apia, which seeks to enhance collaboration in areas of governance.

On 9 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning Australia’s Pacific Regional Aid Strategy. Extracts from the release follow:

The new Pacific Regional Aid Strategy (2004-2009) outlines Australia’s robust and cooperative approach to supporting peace and development in the Pacific region.

The strategy aims to add value to Australian aid delivery and planning in the Pacific and reflects the changes in the past two years in Australia’s engagement with Pacific nations.

…

It is an unambiguous response to the wider deterioration in international security and growing trans-national challenges. The strategy comprehensively addresses problems of governance, development, economic growth and law and order that affect the region.

Australia’s assistance to Pacific countries will continue to be tailored to specific country situations and to recognise the limits to self-reliance that some countries face. But at the same time there will be a greater emphasis on practical regional approaches.

Regional Security – ANZUS

On 13 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the AsiaLink-ANU National Forum entitled “Australia’s Engagement with Asia: A New Paradigm”. An extract from the speech follows:

It must be understood that the ANZUS alliance does not isolate us from our neighbours, it adds to our value. ANZUS combines with the other security alliances and the arrangements the US has forged throughout Asia – not only with Japan and Korea, but also with Thailand and the Philippines – to form a strategic framework that helps keep the whole region stable.

Regional Security – ANZUS – United States

of America

On 18 June 2004, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the subject of regional security. Extracts from the speech follow:

I believe in the US alliance because it is in our national interest and delivers enormous benefits to Australia.

Australia’s ability to influence and work with the United States is vital to meeting the security challenges that we face today – above all terrorism and weapons proliferation.

…

Our alliance relationship ensures that Australia has privileged access to an unrivalled set of military and intelligence assets. Defence technology and procurement cooperation under the alliance is essential to maintaining the qualitative edge of Australia’s defence forces. Along with our vital intelligence links, this is important not just to counter conventional military threats, but also to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks.

Of course, the alliance is a two-way street. In this context, I have made no secret of the fact that the alliance relationship was a factor in the Government’s decision to join the US-led campaign in Iraq.

…

Inevitably we will have differing priorities at times, but we are able to communicate them in a way that keeps sight of our common objectives. A capacity to speak openly and frankly with the United State at the highest levels is an asset no Australian leader should put at risk by intemperate, personal abuse.

Regional Security – Australia and New Zealand

Border Security Arrangement

On 19 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the New Zealand

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Phil Goff, delivered a joint statement on the signature of the Australia and New Zealand Border Security Arrangement. An extract from the release follows:

An arrangement signed today between Australia and New Zealand

will strengthen the security of international air travel.

The arrangement was signed in Auckland at the end of our regular six-monthly talks.

It sets out a framework for the exchange of information between New Zealand

and Australia on passports and visas issued by the two countries. The aim is to improve the security screening of incoming passengers while minimising disruption for genuine travellers and respecting their privacy.

Regional Security – Japan

On 13 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the AsiaLink-ANU National Forum entitled “Australia’s Engagement with Asia: A New Paradigm”. An extract from the speech follows:

Australia also welcomes the increased effort by Japan

, under Prime Minister Koizumi’s leadership, to make a greater contribution to regional and international security.

We greatly appreciate Japan’s increased willingness to contribute peacekeeping operations – including in East Timor where Japanese and Australian personnel worked closely together. And, more recently, Japan has made a significant contribution to coalition efforts to help the Iraqi people build a peaceful, democratic future for their nation.

Following the commencement of a trilateral dialogue on security-related issues with Japan and the United States, I expect that Australia’s security links with Japan will become even more important.

Regional Security – Middle East

– Israeli

Security Barrier

On 15 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding the ICJ

Opinion on Israel’s security barrier. An extract from the release follows:

I regret that on 9 July the International Court of Justice

delivered an Advisory Opinion about Israel’s security barrier. Australia voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution which referred the matter to the Court. We did not think it would be appropriate, or helpful, for the Court to pronounce on the matter. And we were concerned that the Court’s consideration would distract the parties from the urgent need to resume negotiations in order to resolve the tragic and long-running Israeli

-Palestinian dispute.

The parties must meet their commitments under the Roadmap and move towards a two-state solution with Israel

and Palestine

living along side each other in peace, security and prosperity.

As I have so often said before, Israel

has a right to defend itself from acts of terrorism and the security barrier has been demonstrably successful in protecting innocent Israeli lives from suicide/homicide bombers.

As I have also made clear, I would not want the barrier to become a de facto border and I have urged the Israeli

Government to consider moving the barrier closer to the 1967 line.

I note that the Israeli

Government has committed itself to implementing the 30 June ruling of the Israeli High Court which called for a large section of the barrier to be rerouted to take into account the suffering of the Palestinian people whose lives would be severely disrupted by the barrier there.

On 16 July 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Tenth Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

of 9 July 2004. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia regrets that on 9 July the International Court of Justice

delivered an Advisory Opinion on Israel’s security barrier. Australia voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution which referred the matter to the Court. We remain of the view that the resolution unfairly isolated a single issue in a complex conflict; that it served no purpose, given the nature and content of resolutions already passed by this Assembly; that it would politicise the Court; and that it would distract the parties – as is happening – from the urgent need to resume negotiations in order to resolve the tragic and long-running Israeli

-Palestinian dispute.

Australia urges Israel

and the Palestinian Authority to meet their commitments under the Unendorsed Roadmap to Middle East Peace and to move towards a two-state solution which would see Israel and a state of Palestine

living side by side in peace, security, and prosperity.

Australia notes that the ICJ

, in its advisory opinion, recognised the importance of negotiations under the Roadmap and the need for these efforts to be encouraged.

On 22 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding the General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15, adopted on 2 August 2004. An extract from the release follows:

The Government took a clear, consistent and principled position in the vote on the UN General Assembly’s resolution about the International Court of Justice

’s (ICJ) ruling on Israel’s security barrier yesterday.

Australia voted against the Emergency Special Session resolution on 20 July in New York because:

• we did not think an ICJ

opinion would help make progress towards resolving the Israeli

-Palestinian dispute

• this action ran the risk of politicising the ICJ

, an important body

• and we believe Israel

has the right to defend itself from terrorists attacks from suicide/homicide bombers.

However, Australia understands and shares the concerns of the Palestinian community about the route of the security barrier.

I have urged Israel’s government to move the route closer to the so-called 1967 green line and I welcome its positive response to the recent Israeli

High Court ruling on this issue.

On 13 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law entitled “Harnessing the International System for Peace and Prosperity”. Extracts from the speech follow:

I would venture a few comments on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice

in relation to Israel’s security barrier.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion recognised the inherit right of self-defence from armed attack, enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter

.

But it also limited this right to self-defence

in case of an armed attack “by one State against another State”, even though this limitation does not expressly appear in Article 51.

In so doing, the ICJ’s Opinion has gained a far greater significance than just the Israeli

-Palestinian conflict.

While the Advisory Opinion mentions UN Security Council Resolution 1373, it really failed to take account of the fact that that Resolution did contemplate a right of self-defence

in response to acts of terrorism

.

…

Clearly a number on the ICJ

bench did not fully agree with the Opinion – with separate opinions being issued by three Judges.

In my view – as a foreign minister who needs to be able to harness international law

in pursuit of Australia’s national interests – this aspect of the opinion does not enhance the potential for international law to advance peace and stability.

It simply does not make sense in this age of transnational terrorism

to so narrowly define any State’s capacity to deal with such a complex threat to its security…

… and indeed to ignore these complexities when making contributions to case law at the international level.

And in doing so, nothing has been gained in relation to the conflict under review…

… neither the ICJ’s Opinion nor its adoption by the General Assembly – which Australia voted against – has contributed materially to progress towards peace between Israel

and the Palestinians.

Of course, it is a matter for the public record that I have urged the government of Israel

to move the security barrier closer to the green line – the 1949 armistice line – and not to allow it to become a de facto border.

But this does not take away from our strong belief that Israel

, and all countries, have the right to defend themselves from terrorism

, including where such acts are committed by non-State actors.

Regional Security – Nauru

On 22 June 2004, the Agreement between Australia and Nauru

concerning additional police and other assistance to Nauru, done at Melbourne on 10 May 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The treaty, [once in] force, will enable Australian officials and police to deploy to Nauru

urgently. The deployment of these officials is expected to occur as soon as the Parliament of Nauru passes the necessary enabling legislation.

…

Australia’s additional assistance to Nauru

under the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 25 February 2004 will provide Nauru with a Secretary of Finance and a Director of Police as key measures to address Nauru’s most serious and immediate challenges. The Secretary of Finance and Director of Police will each be supported by two Australian advisers. This is intended to reverse Nauru’s decline and restore the country to stability. It also reflects recognition of Australia’s long-standing relationship with Nauru.

The Agreement is part of the necessary framework at international law for Australia to deliver assistance to Nauru

.

…

Nauru

is among the most egregious examples of corruption, profligacy and mismanagement in the South Pacific. For consistency in our policy on the importance of sound economic management and good governance for the Pacific Island Countries (PICs), and to arrest Nauru’s descent into state failure, it was necessary for Australia to take steps to intervene in the management of Nauru’s economy.

Regional Security – Papua New Guinea

– Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation

On 30 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release marking the signature of the Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation. An extract from the release follows:

Today I have signed with Papua New Guinea

’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Sir Rabbie Namaliu, a Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation. The Joint Agreement is a major step forward in implementing the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) agreed by Australian

and PNG Ministers last December.

On 27 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the Papua New Guinea

Parliament vote for cooperation with Australia. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome news that the Papua New Guinea

Parliament has passed legislation giving effect to the Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation between Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Today’s vote means that the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP), agreed by Australian and Papua New Guinea

Ministers last December, can now proceed. The ECP is one of the most important developments in Australian foreign policy in a long time.

On 4 August 2004, the Joint Agreement on Enhanced Cooperation between Australia and Papua New Guinea

, done at Port Moresby on 30 June 2004, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

Australia has a history of close cooperation with Papua New Guinea

. Since independence in 1975 the two countries have had a strong relationship. This has been enshrined in a number of documents, including the Joint Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea (1987, updated in 1992) and the Treaty on Development Cooperation (2000).

In recent years, the challenges facing Papua New Guinea

have undermined the essential workings of government. Core challenges have included law and order, justice, corruption, financial management and governance. The Papua New Guinea government has made serious attempts to address some of these problems, and has had some success in facilitating growth and stability. Nevertheless, Papua New Guinea’s core challenges remain and are becoming more serious.

In mid-2003 Australia offered to take a more direct role in helping Papua New Guinea

to address its core challenges. Foreign Minister Downer

met Foreign Minister Sir Rabbie Namaliu in Port Moresby in September 2003 to discuss the offer.

The resulting framework included a commitment by Australia and Papua New Guinea

to address core challenges in governance, law and order, justice, financial management, economic and social progress, as well as capacity in the public service. It also included close engagement and cooperation with the international financial institutions, and a renewed commitment by Papua New Guinea to reduce the size of its Defence Force. Finally, Australia and Papua New Guinea agreed to consider the principle of Australian officials working in Papua New Guinea departments and agencies.

In late 2003 senior Australian officials looked into law and order, policing, justice, border management, transport safety and security, macro-economic management and public sector reform issues. Discussions resulted in a “Concept of Assistance for a Policing Package”, and agreement on the desirability of placing Australian officials in line positions within the Papua New Guinea

Public Service.

At the Australia-Papua New Guinea

Ministerial Forum on 11 December 2003, Ministers agreed to the details of the ECP. Under the ECP up to 230 Australian police will work with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) to help address law and order issues. Up to 18 Australian legal specialists will help strengthen the legal system; up to 36 Australian officials will work in key central economic agencies to help Papua New Guinea progress its economic development; and up to 10 Australian officials will help in the areas of border management, transport security, and transport safety.

…

The Agreement provides a basis in international law for the presence of Australian police and other personnel in Papua New Guinea

. Together with enabling legislation being put forward by the Papua New Guinea government, it will provide Australian police and other personnel with the powers and protections they need to operate in line positions. It provides the legal framework for the ECP.

On 1 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech at the launch of the DFAT Economic Analytical Unit report entitled “Papua New Guinea

: The Road Ahead”. Extracts from the speech follow:

A year ago in December 2003, Australia and Papua New Guinea

agreed to an Enhanced Cooperation Program, or the ‘ECP’ as we refer to it.

The ECP is designed to assist Papua New Guinea

to:

• deal more strategically with law and order issues;

• identify and reduce corruption;

• strengthen economic management and public sector reform

• and deal with pressing problems in border control, and transport security and safety.

Australia is providing new funding, estimated at $805 million over four years to 30 June 2008, for the ECP, with the remaining costs to be absorbed within the existing $300 million annual bilateral aid program.

ECP is in the early stages of implementation, but we have commenced with the deployment of officials and police to work alongside PNG

colleagues. By early next year it is anticipated the ECP will have around 210 Australian Federal Police working side-by-side with their RPNGC counterparts. In fact, the first joint police patrols in Port Moresby will commence tomorrow.

• As part of the ECP there will also be:

• senior judicial and legal sector appointments

• senior in-line economic and financial managers

• and a range of officials working in agencies responsible for customs, immigration, aviation and maritime security.

The ECP contribution in terms of economic expertise is already in evidence, assisting with the framing of a very responsible PNG

budget handed down on 15 November.

On 15 December 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding the Australia-PNG

Ministerial Forum. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia and Papua New Guinea

have today concluded a very productive 16th Ministerial Forum meeting in Lae, attended by seven Australian and nine Papua New Guinea Ministers.

…

The Ministerial Forum focused on the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP), with Ministers agreeing on next steps to achieve the program’s objectives. The ECP represents an historic shift towards a true partnership with PNG

. It is twelve months since agreement was reached on the program. With Australian personnel now being placed, it was timely to review progress and consider future directions.

Australian and PNG

ministers expressed their commitment to use the ECP to improve governance in Papua New Guinea, especially fiscal management and resource allocation, and to help reform the PNG police force and the public sector more generally.

…

Under the ECP, 64 of 210 Australian police and 32 of 64 officials have now been deployed, with the remainder to be in place by March 2005. The program has already achieved good outcomes. ECP officials played a major role in preparing the 2005 PNG

Budget and are helping strengthen financial controls. Australian police have been working to improve operating conditions within the PNG police force so that it can do its job more effectively.

Regional Security – Port Security

On 10 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on strengthening port security in the Pacific. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia is providing almost $500,000 to help Pacific nations, including Papua New Guinea

, improve port security and develop and implement port security plans.

The priority of this assistance is to provide administrators, port operators and shipping companies in Pacific nations with the skills and knowledge to meet the 1 July deadline for compliance with the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS).

…

The ‘Security in the Pacific Islands Maritime Sector Project’, will train maritime personnel from the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga and Vanuatu, to develop and review security plans that meet the provisions of the ISPS code.

Australia is also providing similar assistance to Papua New Guinea under the ‘PNG Maritime Security Assistance Project’, jointly managed by AusAID and the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

…

Improving port security in these countries will help reduce the risk of terrorism and is critical in underpinning regional security, good governance and economic progress in the Pacific.

Sanctions – Zimbabwe

On 4 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the expansion of sanctions against Zimbabwe

. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia is expanding its bilateral “smart sanctions” against the regime of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe

.

This decision reflects our growing concern about the plight of the people of Zimbabwe

and the intransigence by the Zimbabwean Government in considering reform.

The policies and actions of the Mugabe regime are forcing Zimbabweans to endure economic meltdown and relentless attacks on democratic values and the rule of law.

Australia’s “smart sanctions” will now be expanded by adding senior management officials of Zimbabwean state-owned enterprises to the list of government officials facing visa restrictions for travel to Australia. Previous measures implemented in October 2002 will remain in place.

…

I call on Robert Mugabe to take immediate steps to restore his country to democracy and the rule of law.

Australia is determined not to harm the Zimbabwean people and our support for them will continue. In the World Food Program’s current appeal for humanitarian food aid, Australia is the fifth largest donor to Zimbabwe

. Since March 2002, we have provided $49 million in assistance throughout southern Africa.

Australians are proud that we stood side by side with the Zimbabwean people before and after independence and we remain resolute to help them in their time of great need.

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia

On 29 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia

. An extract from Mr Downer’s response follows:

The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation […] is a treaty based on a series of principles. Some of them are the principles of the United Nations Charter

, and one of the principles of the United Nations Charter is the right to self-defence

. It is nothing to do with the notion of pre-emption. Other principles that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is based on are, among other things, the so-called 10 principles of the Bandung Declaration of the 1950s. One of the components of the Bandung Declaration was that governments that signed up to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation would abstain from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers.

Bearing that in mind, successive Australian governments—not just this one—have interpreted that particular principle as one that would be inconsistent with the ANZUS alliance. That obviously has been one of the reasons historically why Australian governments have not signed the treaty. Another reason is that it is a treaty that contains a provision for noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries. Therefore, it raises questions about whether, if you signed the treaty and you meant to sign it in a genuine way—taking seriously the provisions of the treaty—you would not interfere in the affairs of another country; you would not, for example, criticise Burma, Myanmar, for human rights abuses.

These are the traditional reasons why Australia has not signed the treaty. The government has not changed its position, on the basis of those explanations.

United Nations

Mission of Support – Timor-Leste

On 20 February 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council

in relation to the Report of the Secretary General

on the United Nations Mission of Support in Timor-Leste. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia is proud of what we have done to assist Timor Leste

in building a stable and sustainable democracy. No country has done more. We remain committed to helping Timor Leste with its security and development challenges – bilaterally and through the United Nations.

Together with the UN, we have a big stake in ensuring that East Timor

is equipped to meet the challenges it faces, and that it succeeds.

Australia’s contribution has, of course, been part of a highly cooperative and effective international effort. It is our strong desire that this cooperative, consensus-based approach continue as we enter into a new phase of engagement with Timor Leste

.

Despite the encouraging progress, further international assistance to Timor Leste

remains essential.

It is clear that the mission needs some form of armed security component. Australia is firmly of the view that a back-up UN policing component is necessary to help East Timor

address its likely law and order challenges. If the UN so decides, we would also join a consensus on a peacekeeping force.

As you would be aware, Australia has been carefully analysing Timor Leste

’s security needs for a considerable time. In October last year we told the Council what we believed the threats were and how they should be addressed. Developments since then have confirmed that our assessment is fundamentally sound. We consider that Timor Leste’s security challenges – highlighted, for example, by the 2002 Dili riot and the armed assaults near the border in early 2003 – remain substantial, but these are internal and will require a police rather than military response.

…

A properly designed emergency police response group would be able to deal with the broad spectrum of security incidents that may arise, including in the border area.

A police unit would have appropriate training and expertise to deal with Timor Leste

’s internal law and order problems, and would provide a more graduated and faster response to any incident; for example a police unit could provide a constabulary function and would have the power to arrest. Under the model proposed by Australia, day-to-day and executive policing would be the sole responsibility of the Timor Leste government and its police service. The UN police unit would deploy only in emergency situations that risk overwhelming the local police and at the request of Timor Leste’s Prime Minister. If agreed by the SRSG (after consulting with the UN Police Adviser and unit commander), the unit would be the lead agency for an incident until it was resolved and responsibility was handed back formally to the Timor Leste government. The model is similar to the ‘call-out’ arrangements proposed by the Secretary-General for a PKF.

Australian experience suggests that such command and control arrangements work.

I should also say plainly that we fully sympathise with the need for force protection for the unarmed Military Liaison Officers, and would envision the police unit also having the capacity to protect UN personnel in emergency situations, as UN gendarmes have done in other contexts. The police unit must therefore have the capacity of timely self-deployment to both urban and rural areas and access to helicopter support.

On 15 May 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming the extension of the United Nations Mission of Support in Timor-Leste. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the United Nations Security Council resolution on 14 May 2004 to extend the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor

(UNMISET) for another year through to 20 May 2005.

…

In keeping with Australia’s strong record of assisting East Timor

in its early years, I wished to note that Australia again played an active role in advocating the need for a continued UN mission and in galvanising international support for this outcome.

The follow-on UNMISET mission, although reduced in size, will continue to provide solid support to East Timor

’s fledgling public administration, judicial and security institutions.

…

Australia is particularly pleased that the mission will include substantive security elements with both a small peacekeeping force and an international response unit comprising police gendarmes to provide back-up support to East Timor

’s security forces in emergency situations.

…

We will provide significant bilateral assistance to East Timor

’s security institutions through a $40 million 4.5 year program of capacity-building assistance to East Timor’s police force and justice sector and through our defence cooperation program. Australia will continue to be a major provider of bilateral development assistance. We are currently in the final year of a four year $150 million pledge and assistance will be maintained at around $40 million per year over the next three years.

On 24 August 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council on Australian assistance to Timor-Leste. An extract from the statement follows:

I am pleased to tell the Council that the joint Australia-United Kingdom police development program, which was mobilised in July and which commits A $32 million over four-and-a-half years, is making good progress and has been well received by the Government of Timor Leste

.

Australia will continue to stand along side its neighbour to help bring opportunities and stability to the people of Timor Leste

, not least through our commitment of some 100 military and 17 police personnel to the UN mission, and our significant development assistance, police and defence programs.

On 15 November 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council concerning the Report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Mission of Support in Timor-Leste. Extracts from the statement follow:

Together with the United Nations and other neighbours of Timor Leste

, we continue to have a big stake in ensuring that Timor Leste is equipped to meet the challenges that it faces.

Australia welcomes the Secretary-General’s

progress report on the UN Mission of Support in East Timor

(UNMISET). As the report confirms, Timor Leste has made steady progress in its institution building efforts. It is encouraging that the support of the United Nations and the international community is having a tangible impact in areas of key concern. Although notable advances have been made, Timor Leste has not yet achieved self-sufficiency. More needs to be done to develop public administration capacity and the professionalism and competency of its security institutions. Both areas are obviously critical to Timor Leste’s longer term stability. It is clear that Timor Leste requires the ongoing assistance of the international community and the United Nations.

We therefore strongly endorse the Report’s key recommendation that UNMISET be retained with its current tasks, configuration and size until 20 May 2005.

…

Over the next six months it will be important for UNMISET to accomplish as much as possible and to implement a viable transition strategy, taking into account Timor Leste

’s development needs. Looking further afield, it will also be critical for UN development agencies and the broader international community to remain engaged in a coordinated way and assist Timor Leste with its many development challenges.

…

For Australia’s part, we remain firmly committed to assisting Timor Leste

to meet its development needs. We will continue to provide strong support to UNMISET, including through the contribution of personnel to the military liaison officer and police adviser contingents.

Australia will also continue to be a major provider of bilateral development assistance to Timor Leste

, especially in the areas of policing and good governance.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

On 30 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement during the General Debate segment of the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly. An extract from the statement follows:

The proliferation of WMD is another urgent concern.

Unless we act firmly and with unity, terrorist groups could one day acquire WMD with disastrous consequences.

As a threat to international security the issue of WMD proliferation falls squarely within the Security Council’s mandate.

We welcome adoption of UNSCR 1540 as a demonstration of the Council’s willingness to engage on WMD proliferation, including the risk of WMD terrorism.

We hope that with adoption of this resolution the Council will take a firmer and more active stance on WMD issues.

As part of our commitment to combating the risk of nuclear terrorism, Australia will host an Asia-Pacific Ministerial conference in November on nuclear safeguards and security.

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

On 29 April 2004, Mr David Mason, Deputy Head of the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Vienna, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference in relation to the physical protection of nuclear material. An extract from the statement follows:

Physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities is a key element of national systems of nuclear security. We call on all states yet to do so to accede to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material

(CPPNM) and to apply, as appropriate, the physical protection recommendations in IAEA

document INFCIRC/225/Rev.4 (Corrected) and in other relevant international instruments. Australia has been an active contributor to work in Vienna on strengthening the CPPNM and urges all member states to progress final negotiations and support a Diplomatic Conference by the end of 2004 so that a well-defined amendment to the Convention may be brought into force at the earliest opportunity.

Finally, we welcome the progress made on disposal of excess weapons fissile material in ways that make it no longer useable for nuclear weapons. The PrepCom should strongly support excess military fissile material being placed under IAEA

safeguards as soon as practicable, thereby irreversibly removing it from weapons use.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation

On 23 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute entitled “The Threat of Proliferation: Global Resolve and Australian Action”. Extracts from the speech follow:

The Government has believed for some time that the status quo of non-proliferation measures is unacceptable.

As Australia sees it, there is no doubt new thinking is still needed to strengthen counter-proliferation architecture.

The challenge is to go beyond the constraints imposed by consensus decision making to lift the standards of compliance and enforcement in these regimes. The Government’s efforts and resolve have produced some significant outcomes.

We used our Board position in the IAEA

to secure strong resolutions on Iran, thereby increasing the pressure on Iran to cooperate with the international community. Our contribution to the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Fund is helping to address the threat of nuclear terrorism through practical measures, such as securing radioactive sources that could be used in a ‘dirtybomb’. In the region we have trained officials to provide adequate security for sensitive nuclear materials and facilities. Just two weeks ago my department, working with the IAEA and the US Department of Energy, delivered training in this vital area to regional experts with the job of fortifying defences against theft and sabotage.

We have developed, and had endorsed within the Australia Group, an Asia-Pacific Regional Action Plan to strengthen implementation of export controls – and identify weaknesses. We will work to have this plan become a template for other regions.

We shall be stepping up our regional outreach efforts, building on visits to Thailand and Singapore last year. In the coming year we plan to do more with key ASEAN countries on transhipment and engage China on its recent white paper on counter-proliferation.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Ballistic Missile Defence

On 23 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute entitled “The Threat of Proliferation: Global Resolve and Australian Action”. Extracts from the speech follow:

The proliferation of ballistic missiles and the technology that is enhancing their range and accuracy is a significant threat. But it is the proliferation of ballistic missiles by and to rogue states that demands new thinking.

…

The strategic doctrine of deterrence or the game theory calculus of mutually assured destruction don’t apply when the strategic environment is one of asymmetric threats; threats of coercion and blackmail. Missile defence is a reasonable defensive measure. It will protect people and defence personnel from missile attack. The limited scope of the system – due to be installed operationally for the first time in September – will not spark an arms race. Instead it should dissuade countries and others from acquiring and developing ballistic missiles.

…

Australia will determine the scope of its participation in missile defence as part of discussions with the United States. We are already making good progress in negotiating a framework with the United States and expect to sign a memorandum of understanding this year.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Proliferation Security Initiative

On 23 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute entitled “The Threat of Proliferation: Global Resolve and Australian Action”. Extracts from the speech follow:

Australia has enthusiastically participated in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Since the Initiative’s inception Australia has worked as a core partner to develop the PSI as a practical measure to impede and interdict the flow of illicit WMD materials. Last year we hosted the second meeting of the eleven core PSI partners. And we led the very first operational exercise – ‘Pacific Protector’ – involving Australian, US, Japanese and French military and law enforcement assets.

…

Significantly, the PSI is already making a difference. Last year, US, UK, Germany and Italy – acting under PSI auspices – interdicted an illicit cargo of centrifuge parts for uranium enrichment en route to Libya. We want to strengthen support for the PSI over the coming year.

We are particularly pleased that Singapore will join PSI core group members at the forthcoming plenary in Lisbon in March.

…

Australia will participate where practical in PSI exercises.

…

We will also continue our efforts to ensure the timely collection and dissemination of operational intelligence in support of PSI actions and objectives.

Australia shares President Bush’s vision of expanding PSI cooperation into the realm of law enforcement, particularly through Interpol.

On 2 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding Russia’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative. Extracts from the release follow:

I welcome Russia’s decision to join a global initiative to stem the illicit trade in weapons of mass destruction.

…

As a major power, with extensive land and sea borders, Russia stands to make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the initiative. Other core group participants are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom and United States.

The Proliferation Security Initiative was announced by United States President Bush

in Krakow on 31 May last year.

…

In just one year, the security initiative has harnessed strong international support and is rapidly building operational capacity through a series of sea, air and land interdiction exercises. More exercises based on real-life scenarios and experts meetings are planned in keeping with the PSI’s operational focus.

Over 60 countries attended a Global PSI Meeting held in Poland this week to mark the first anniversary of the initiative.

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled “International Security – Making progress in Uncertain Times”. Extracts from the speech follow:

Recently Russia

became the 15th PSI core participant and over 60 countries attended a global PSI meeting celebrating the first anniversary of the initiative.

Public and private diplomacy, pressure and persuasion are also playing a crucial role in current counter-proliferation efforts.

The revelations of the proliferation network run by Pakistan’s AQ Khan and of Libya’s past WMD procurement are proving valuable tools in efforts to stem the illicit trade in WMD technologies and materials.

With increased funding for its watchdog nuclear safeguards role – and solid support from the international community – the International Atomic Energy Agency

is putting countries of concern increasingly under the spotlight.

Libya’s historic decision to renounce WMD will bring it due rewards…

… and Iran

is now feeling the pressure to fully address the strong concerns of the international community.

In the Asia Pacific region, the six party talks initiative – being hosted by China, with assistance from its neighbours, the United States and Russia – remains the only viable way forward to address North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

Here Australia has also been playing a role, through our diplomatic relations with the North and in urging regional countries to maintain pressure.

Once Pyongyang has met the requirements of the international community for transparent and permanent dismantling of its nuclear programs, we want to see North Korea more fully integrated into the international community…

… with all the security and economic benefits that will bring for North Korea

, its people and for the region.

In the post September 11 world we have come to understand better the risks failed and failing states pose for regional and global security.

Afghanistan’s hosting of the Al Qaida network was a stark lesson for us all on the dangers that can emerge from some failed states.

And unending civil war, poverty and weak governance in the 1990s also created an attractive environment for Al Qaida operations from Sudan and Somalia.

These events remind us that we must take a practical, activist approach to ensure potential incubators of future threats – weak states – are pulled back from the precipice and given a sustainable footing to face the future with confidence and security.

Countries active in the international arena have a responsibility to promote good governance and encourage the development of states capable of dealing with transnational crimes and denying safe haven or safe passage to perpetrators.

There are of course also sound development reasons for doing so – with good governance and the rule of law giving business people and investors confidence to go about their work and advancing the interests of all the members of a community.

Australia has identified a need to address these in our own region.

We are working closely with Indonesia and the Philippines on a range of governance measures.

And we are also playing a leading role in efforts to address the risks posed by state and institutional weakness in the Pacific.

The most prominent example of this has been the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI

) – an ongoing initiative developed with regional partners to restore law and order and to bring sustainable governance reform to that country.

Australia is also keen to help Papua New Guinea to strengthen its governance. Last week in Port Moresby, I signed an Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea to allow for substantial Australian police, financial and legal assistance to reduce crime and improve governance.

Our work with the Solomon Islands, with Papua New Guinea, as well as a new agreement on assistance to Nauru, mark a specific and significant shift in our dealings with the South Pacific.

We are now prepared to get more directly involved, in cases where we believe this will have a positive impact.

Our experience in the Solomon Islands context reassures us that this strategy is soundly-based…

… and we will continue this approach in cooperation with international partners – from the region and Europe alike.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Counter-Proliferation – Resolution 1540 – Security Council

Resolution on Proliferation

On 29 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release welcoming the United Nations Security Council Resolution on WMD Proliferation. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome the unanimous adoption on 28 April by the United Nations Security Council

of a resolution requiring states to criminalise the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), enact strict export controls and secure sensitive materials.

Australia strongly supported the resolution. I sought early adoption of the resolution by the Security Council to lay the foundation for greater attention to practical counter-proliferation measures.

On 11 May 2004, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill

, answered a question on notice in relation to the draft resolution on non-proliferation:

(a) How does this resolution assist in the realisation of international law in this area; and

(b) does the Minister agree that the resolution as drafted has the potential to undermine other international law; if not, why not?

An extract from Mr Hill’s response follows:

(a) UN Security Council resolutions, when adopted, are binding on all Member States.

(b) The resolution as currently drafted will extend international law in the area of WMD non-proliferation.

No. The resolution does not attempt to rewrite or replace existing treaties or conventions. Rather it seeks to support them.

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee concerning United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia regards UN Security Council Resolution 1540 as a timely and appropriate response to the serious threat of WMD and missile proliferation, including the risk of non-state actors acquiring WMD. We urge all states to act quickly and with determination in implementing this historic resolution.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

On 24 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning Australia’s involvement in the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Extracts from the release follow:

I am pleased to announce that Australia’s $10 million contribution to the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction will be used to help dismantle nuclear submarines decommissioned from the Russian Pacific fleet.

Australia, one of 13 non-G8 countries participating in the Partnership, will work with Japan and Russia under an existing agreement covering this work in the Russian Far East.

More than 40 decommissioned nuclear submarines are moored in the Russian Far East posing possible proliferation and environmental threats.

The Global Partnership identified the dismantling of such submarines as a priority in the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

…

The Global Partnership was launched in June 2002 at the G8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, to address non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism and nuclear safety issues, initially in Russia.

G8 countries pledged to raise up to $20 billion to support such projects over the next 10 years. Other countries were also invited to participate. Australia was one of seven additional non-G8 countries whose decision to take part was announced at the 2004 G8 Summit at Sea Island.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation

On 18 October 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative to the Australian Mission in Geneva, delivered a statement to the First Committee on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Extracts from the statement follow:

The risk of NPT parties misusing the Treaty’s peaceful nuclear energy provisions in order to acquire the technical basis for a rapid breakout to nuclear weapons is a serious matter for the international community. The Review Conference will need to take forward the international dialogue on ways to limit the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. […] This is not a question of reinterpreting the NPT but of ensuring that actions by NPT parties are true to the Treaty’s intent and to the global non-proliferation norm.

…

Australia

remains strongly committed to progress on nuclear disarmament and is pleased again to co-sponsor Japan’s resolution on “A Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons”.

We strongly support the CTBT and are actively pursuing further signatures and ratifications. With Japan, Finland and the Netherlands we were pleased earlier at this General Assembly to convene a joint ministerial meeting which underscored that support for the CTBT remains widespread and resolute. Australia is pleased also to be lead co-sponsor with New Zealand and Mexico of the draft CTBT resolution.

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

On 19 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning Australia and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

. An extract from the release follows:

Key provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

(CTBT) Act 1998 come into effect in Australia

from today.

This will help Australia to maintain its leading role in international efforts against the testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This includes practical steps, already well advanced in Australia, to develop the International Monitoring System (IMS) which is at the heart of CTBT verification. Australia has in operation 16 of the 21 IMS monitoring facilities it will host.

It will also create an offence in Australian law of causing a nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, punishable with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. This law will apply to all persons within Australia and to Australian citizens anywhere.

The proclamation of these laws has been made possible following the passage of the Non-Proliferation Legislation Amendment Act 2003, which introduced measures to strengthen Australia’s commitment to countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

On 26 April 2004, H E .Mr Peter Tesch

, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

. An extract from the statement follows:

With 171 signatories and 112 ratifications the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has established a powerful international norm against nuclear testing.

On 29 April 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Continued, steady progress on nuclear disarmament is central to preserving the political strength and vitality of the Treaty, and remains a key Australian policy objective.

…

Australia, like many other delegations, places particular importance on entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We are convinced CTBT entry into force would serve the interests of all NPT parties, non-nuclear and nuclear weapon state alike. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that already the CTBT’s International Monitoring System is delivering real security benefits. We look to the PrepCom to urge those countries yet to sign or ratify the CTBT to do so as quickly as possible. Until the CTBT enters into force, existing moratoriums on nuclear testing must be maintained, and strong support for the development of the International Monitoring System sustained.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee in relation to the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. An extract from the statement follows:

It is disappointing that another First Committee has come without progress on the widely-held aspiration for negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Australia believes firmly that, to be credible and effective, the FMCT should include appropriate verification measures. We stand ready to work with all member states on ways to ensure effective FMCT verification. Pending an FMCT, we urge all relevant States to apply a moratorium on production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Moratorium on New Enrichment and Reprocessing Plants

On 26 April 2004, H E Mr Peter Tesch

, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding the proposed moratorium on new enrichment and reprocessing plants. An extracts from the statement follows:

The risk of NPT parties misusing the Treaty’s peaceful nuclear energy provisions in order to acquire the technical basis for a rapid breakout to nuclear weapons is a serious matter for the international community. Australia is ready to work in appropriate forums on ways to address this danger, including by considering the ideas raised by IAEA Director General El Baradei and US President Bush

. Australia considers a moratorium on new enrichment and reprocessing plants should be applied while an appropriate framework is developed to ensure such projects do not present a risk to non-proliferation objectives.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions

On 29 April 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference on the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions

. An extract from the statement follows:

Australia welcomes entry into force of the Moscow Treaty on June 1 2003. We hope the United States and Russia will continue to pursue progressive reductions to strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons in both deployed and reserve holdings. Australia also welcomes the nuclear disarmament steps taken by the United Kingdom and France.

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

On 23 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute entitled “The Threat of Proliferation: Global Resolve and Australian Action”. Extracts from the speech follow:

We will also be working to strengthen key treaties and mechanisms. We will work to have the Additional Protocol become the global safeguards standard, so the IAEA

is better equipped to uncover the nuclear cheats. We want a stronger Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

.

…

Australia will intensify efforts with other countries to ensure exports of the most sensitive nuclear technologies cannot contribute to weapons programs. One option would be a Code of Conduct for Nuclear Trade and Supply, through which all states could demonstrate commitment to effective national controls on sensitive nuclear exports.

Finally, it is time too for the United Nations Security Council to take a firm stand on proliferation. The Security Council should do more to promote and defend WMD non-proliferation standards. The world needs a mandatory Chapter VII resolution on counter-proliferation. I believe there should be a UN Security Council Resolution on WMD non-proliferation which would require states to criminalise proliferation, enact strict export controls, and secure sensitive materials.

I want this resolution because it will lay the foundation for greater Security Council attention to WMD issues

• for more productive relations among Security Council members on WMD

• and set a benchmark for judging the Security Council’s relevance in changing strategic circumstances.

On 22 March 2004, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Robert Hill

, answered a question on notice in relation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

.

Question

What is the Government’s response to the following comments made by Mr Al-Baradai, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency

on 12 February, and if the Government agrees with any of these comments, what action does the Government intend to take in relation to each:

(2) Tougher inspections in the NPT Additional Protocol should be mandatory in all countries.

(3) The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) needs to be transformed into a binding treaty.

(4) Controls over the export of nuclear material should be tightened by universalising the export control system, removing loopholes and enacting binding, treaty-based controls.

(5) The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, stalled for nearly 8 years, must be revived which would put an end to the production of fissionable material for weapons.

(7) Withdrawal from the NPT should not be allowed and, at a minimum, withdrawal should prompt an automatic review by the United Nations Security Council.

(9) Recent non-proliferation agreements between Russia and the United States should be verifiable and irreversible.

(10) A clear road map for nuclear disarmament should be established – starting with a major reduction in the 30,000 nuclear warheads still in existence.

(11) We must [also] begin to address the root causes of insecurity. In areas of longstanding conflict like the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction – while never justified – can be expected as long as we fail to introduce alternatives that redress the security deficit.

An extract from Mr Hill’s response follows:

Answer

(2) The Government regards the Additional Protocol as the current standard for IAEA

NPT safeguards and is pursuing wide application of the Additional Protocol including through outreach to regional countries.

(3) The Government considers the most practical approach is to lift the current standards of compliance and enforcement by strengthening and broadening the existing non-proliferation regimes.

(4) The Government has been intensifying efforts to ensure that exports of nuclear material and sensitive nuclear technologies cannot contribute to weapons programs.

(5) The Government supports negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

(7) The Government supports further examination by NPT parties of the issue of NPT withdrawal.

(9) The Government regards verification and irreversibility as key principles for nuclear disarmament.

(10) The Government believes that, for the time being, the main steps towards nuclear disarmament are best pursued bilaterally, between the United States and Russia.

(11) The Government takes the view that WMD proliferation is never justified.

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee concerning non-proliferation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

. An extract from the statement follows:

We strongly support the developing international dialogue on limiting the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. We should be clear this is not a question of reinterpreting the NPT but of ensuring that actions by NPT parties are true to the Treaty’s intent and to the global non-proliferation norm.

Like others, we consider that progress on nuclear disarmament is vital to the continued political strength and vitality of the NPT. But we do not share the view that improvements to the non-proliferation regime should be linked inextricably to movement on nuclear disarmament. Such an approach puts at risk the essential security benefit which non-nuclear weapon state parties to the NPT derive from knowing that other non-nuclear weapon states are not engaged in nuclear weapons programs.

On 8 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on strengthening nuclear controls under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

. An extract from the release follows:

Regional countries today expressed their firm resolve to combat nuclear weapons proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism

.

At the Asia-Pacific Nuclear Safeguards and Security Conference in Sydney, participating countries agreed to work together in a sustained and comprehensive effort to enhance the nuclear safeguards and security framework.

Hosted by the Australian Government, the conference was attended by Ministers and their representatives from regional countries and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency

, Dr Mohamed El Baradei.

The conference has served to give all participants a greater understanding of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation among states and the emerging risks of nuclear terrorism. These threats cannot be ignored.

I welcome the statement issued by participating countries at the conclusion of the conference outlining a range of agreed priorities.

The statement emphasises that the highest international standards of nuclear safeguards and security supports national and regional security. They are also essential to realise the benefits of nuclear energy. As countries commit to international standards the incentive for all to meet this best practice will be increased.

The conference statement will be circulated at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

(NPT) Review Conference, to be held in New York in May 2005.

The conference was a practical example of Australia’s strong commitment to working with Asia-Pacific countries to combat nuclear weapons proliferation and the emerging threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism

.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Non-Proliferation – Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

On 29 April 2004, Dr Geoffrey Shaw, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference on nuclear weapon free zones. An extract from the statement follows:

Nuclear weapon free zones make a significant contribution to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Australia also places great importance on nuclear weapon free zones as a vehicle for providing binding negative security assurances to NPT non-nuclear weapon states. Over the past decade nuclear weapon state signature of the protocols to nuclear weapon free zone has increased the number of non-nuclear weapon states benefiting from legally-binding negative security assurances. Where nuclear weapon states are yet to sign or ratify zone Protocols we encourage continuation of discussions aimed at resolving remaining issues to enable this to happen.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – India

and Pakistan

On 30 April 2004, Mr Paul Stephens, Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan. An extract from the statement follows:

We welcome the reduction in tensions between India

and Pakistan

and the steps the two are taking towards resolving the issues that divide them. Nevertheless, the situation continues to illustrate the dangers of nuclear proliferation. We hope that India and Pakistan will come to accept that nuclear weapons have diminished, not added, to their security and will turn away from these weapons. Australia welcomes the nuclear testing moratoria being observed by India and Pakistan and underlines the importance of these being maintained. We urge both countries to hasten building national consensus in their respective countries in support of CTBT signature and ratification. Pending their joining of the NPT we underline the importance of India and Pakistan applying effective nuclear export controls and stand ready to assist both countries in this regard.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Iran

On 10 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, answered a question without notice in relation to nuclear proliferation in Iran

. Extracts from Mr Downer’s response follow:

Australia has been in the forefront of efforts to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

…

My officials and I have a lot of contact with the Iranians, and we have delivered strong messages to them about the pursuit of sensitive nuclear technologies.

The Iraq

war no doubt had an impact, and also other elements of international pressure did lead Iran

to reveal its pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities. We have welcomed their greater engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the nuclear program in Iran has turned out to be more extensive and more advanced than had previously been thought. This will be a matter discussed at the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting this week, and honourable members will know that Australia is one of the members of that board.

Amongst the revelations that the IAEA

has brought forward is the fact that Iran

have breached strict export conditions on the use of an Australian supplied mass spectrometer. A mass spectrometer measures in fine detail the composition of materials and has a wide range of applications. This export was intended to support agricultural and medical research, including cancer diagnosis, but the IAEA has discovered that this export was used to test enriched uranium samples, and Iran have admitted to this happening on at least one occasion. We have explained to the Iranian government that they have breached their export conditions and have sought a full explanation from them and asked Iran to return the instrument if we cannot be confident that they will adhere to the strict conditions governing the instrument’s use. Iran have provided details of their activities, and they assisted our ambassador in making an inspection of the mass spectrometer on 7 March. The government values its relationship with Iran. We are engaging constructively with them on the nuclear issue. We welcome Iran’s cooperation and hope that the fact that the conditions of the export permit were breached on this occasion and the fact that we have now made this public will ensure that such activities do not occur again in the future.

On 30 April 2004, Mr Paul Stephens, Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran

. An extract from the statement follows:

Iran

is still far from resolving international concerns about its nuclear program. IAEA

reports have, since the last PrepCom, brought to light repeated and serious failures by Iran to comply with its safeguards obligations. The Agency has documented efforts by Iran to conceal material, facilities and activities that it was obliged to declare. Outstanding questions remain about aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, including activities related to uranium enrichment.

Australia recognises Iran

has taken some welcome positive steps to improve transparency, in particular Iran’s signature of the Additional Protocol (AP) and its undertaking to implement the AP in full. At Iran’s invitation an Australian expert recently visited Tehran to provide training on AP implementation. The PrepCom should call for Iran’s prompt ratification of the AP and for Iran to ensure its AP declaration is complete.

On 16 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on Iran’s agreement to suspend nuclear enrichment. An extract from the release follows:

I welcome Iran’s agreement to suspend its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities pending the negotiation of a longer-term agreement with the EU on political, economic, technology cooperation and security issues.

The agreement goes some way towards restoring the global community’s confidence that Iran’s nuclear power program will be used for exclusively peaceful purposes. This would improve the security outlook for the Middle East at this crucial time.

Iran’s agreement lays the groundwork for a new resolution at the upcoming November meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors. The IAEA will review Iran’s nuclear safeguards agreement in the wake of disclosures in August last year of undeclared actions and programs in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

.

It is vital that all parties abide by the terms of this new agreement.

As a member of the IAEA Board of Governors, Australia will play its part in ensuring that the agency can verify the full suspension of all Iran’s enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Iraq

On 23 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute entitled “The Threat of Proliferation: Global Resolve and Australian Action”. An extract from the speech follows:

The Coalition’s enforcement of mandatory UN Security Council resolutions in Iraq has put proliferators on notice. The Government was right to take action against Iraq’s persistent failure to comply with mandatory UN Security Council resolutions requiring Saddam’s regime to account for its WMD, the existence of which had been attested by UN inspectors, and its other clandestine WMD capabilities. Robust enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions was the only course of action that would ensure Saddam’s compliance.

The interim Iraq Survey Group report of October last year showed that Saddam Hussein continued to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and that he was actively concealing these efforts from UN inspectors.

On 1 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

. Extracts from the release follow:

The Parliamentary Joint Committee’s report on its Inquiry into intelligence on Iraq’s WMD vindicates the Government’s use of intelligence in stating the case for disarming Iraq.

The bipartisan report confirms that there was ‘no evidence that political pressure was applied to the [intelligence] agencies’. And the Committee agreed that ‘there was no overt pressure from Government to change assessments’.

The Government stands by its presentation of the case for disarming Iraq

of its WMD capabilities. As the committee notes, the Government’s presentation of the evidence was consistent, moderate and measured.

…

On this point, the Government was right: evidence collected since the conflict shows that Saddam was pursuing WMD programs and that his regime was concealing these activities from UN inspectors.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Korean Peninsula

On 30 January 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release on the visit of an Australian delegation to North Korea

. An extract from the release follows:

I am sending a senior delegation to Pyongyang this week to convey our concerns about North Korea

’s nuclear-weapons ambitions and to urge the Government to participate in a second round of six-party talks.

A constructive, diplomatic solution to North Korea

’s nuclear crisis is vital for the security of our region and stability in North Asia and among our allies and top trading partners.

I believe the six-party talks between North and South Korea, China, the United States, Japan and Russia, provide the most viable mechanism for finding a peaceful and lasting solution to the nuclear issue.

On 13 August 2004, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard

, delivered a speech to the AsiaLink-ANU National Forum entitled “Australia’s Engagement with Asia: A New Paradigm”. An extract from the speech follows:

We are engaging fully and energetically in patient diplomacy, but we have also urged those nations most likely to influence the behaviour of North Korea

– South Korea, Japan, Russia, the United States and China – to speak in a firm and united fashion.

We believe that China, in particular, has a crucial role to play in the process. And we have been encouraged by China’s constructive contribution to finding a peaceful solution, especially its pivotal role in hosting the Six Party talks.

On 27 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release regarding nuclear proliferation and the Korean Peninsula. An extract from the release follows:

I warmly welcome the visit by Mr Ban Ki-moon, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade from the Republic of Korea. Mr Ban will be in Australia from 28-31 August as a Guest of Government.

North Korea

’s nuclear ambitions are a key issue for our region. Australia strongly supports the six-party talks focused on achieving a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and in which South Korea has an important role.

On 8 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech entitled “Protecting against nuclear and radiological terrorism

: a comprehensive approach”. An extract from the speech follows:

I reiterated Australia’s strong concern about North Korea

’s nuclear weapons ambitions when I visited Pyongyang in August this year.

North Korea

must declare and dismantle its nuclear weapons programs if it is to grasp the opportunities on offer through the six-party talks and re-engage with the international community.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Libya

On 30 April 2004, Mr Paul Stephens, Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding nuclear proliferation and Libya

. An extract from the statement follows:

Libya’s historic decision in December 2003 to eliminate verifiably all materials, equipment and programs leading to the production of nuclear weapons, should be welcomed by the Prepcom. Libya’s actions stand as a prominent example of the benefits available to States which embrace transparency, and commit to compliance with the highest nuclear non-proliferation standards. The Australian delegation expresses its appreciation to the United Kingdom and United States for working with Libya

to achieve this outcome, and also acknowledges the IAEA’s pivotal role in verifying Libya’s decision.

On 4 October 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the First Committee concerning nuclear proliferation and Libya

. An extract from the statement follows:

Libya’s very welcome decision to renounce WMD demonstrated that WMD programs can be given up peacefully, through open engagement, in ways which improve a state’s future security.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Proliferation – Middle East

On 30 April 2004, Mr Paul Stephens, Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference regarding nuclear proliferation and Libya

. An extract from the statement follows:

The difficult security issues in the Middle East will be made worse by countries in the region developing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Possession of such weapons, or programs for their acquisition, serves to fuel proliferation pressures in the region, damaging the security situation and risking unforeseeable consequences. Australia has consistently urged Middle East countries yet to both sign and ratify the NPT, CTBT, CWC and the BWC to do so without delay. We also encourage Middle East countries to subscribe to The Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Australia’s report on steps taken to promote the achievement of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has been circulated as a Conference document

XIII. Criminal Law

Corruption – United Nations Convention Against Corruption

On 7 December 2004, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption

, done at New York on 31 October 2003, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Extracts from the accompanying National Interest Analysis follow:

The purpose of UNCAC is to enhance international efforts to combat corruption. UNCAC encourages States Parties to adopt anti-corruption measures, provides a standardised approach to criminalisation and ensures States Parties have systems in place to facilitate law enforcement cooperation. Further, UNCAC is the first major international agreement requiring States Parties to return assets obtained through corruption to the country from which they were stolen.

Australia actively participated in developing UNCAC, and is a strong supporter internationally of anti-corruption initiatives. Domestically, Australia has in place extensive anti-corruption policies and legislation. Ratification of UNCAC would further Australia’s ability to combat regional and international corruption. As well as strengthening Australia’s law enforcement cooperation with other countries, UNCAC supports Australia’s standpoint that corruption should not be tolerated in the international community.

…

Ratification of UNCAC would enhance Australia’s position internationally in the fight against corruption. It would allow for greater international law enforcement cooperation to complement domestic anti-corruption measures and legislation. It would demonstrate Australia’s support of international efforts to combat corruption and enhance Australia’s profile internationally as a country committed to this cause.

International Criminal Court

On 14 October 2004, Mr Ben Playle, Second Secretary for the Australian

Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly on the International Criminal Court

. Extracts from the statement follow:

The International Criminal Court

has made considerable progress since the Sixth Committee last considered this item. With the entry into force of the Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations a significant milestone has been achieved. The Agreement will underpin cooperation between the two organisations, and progress the effective operation of the Court. With the recent election of the Second Deputy Prosecutor, all senior positions in the Court are now filled. The framework for the Court’s operations, and the key personnel, are now largely in place. Australia, as a strong supporter of the Court, welcomes this progress.

…

The third Assembly of States Parties reflected the fact that the Court is still in an establishment phase, focused as it was largely on budgetary and administrative matters. Australia played an active role during that meeting in working to strengthen the role of the Court. Australia was particularly pleased that the Assembly agreed on a contingency fund to address unforeseen events or expenditure faced by the Court. This will be an important means of ensuring that the Court is able to respond in a timely manner to the demands which it will face.

Australia welcomes the fact that the Assembly of States Parties, in considering and adopting the budget for the Court, was largely guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Budget and Finance. This is as it should be. Australia also welcomes the emphasis which the President, Registrar and Prosecutor have placed upon robust and effective budgetary management, and the importance of all State Parties paying their contributions to the Court in full and on time. By demonstrating sound budgetary discipline and effective operational practices, the Court will ensure its international credibility and attract further membership. This is essential if the Court is to have a long term, sustainable future.

…

The year ahead will be a crucial one for the Court. Australia welcomes the opening of investigations into the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Northern Uganda, and commends those two States for their decision to refer situations in their respective territories to the Court. We are confident that the Court will, in these cases and others, discharge the responsibilities which we as States Parties have entrusted to it – to ensure that the crimes which shock the conscience of mankind are investigated and tried.

International Criminal Tribunals – International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

On 20 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a joint press release on the election of an Australian to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

. An extract from the release follows:

We warmly congratulate Justice Kevin Parker AO RFD on his successful election overnight to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

(ICTY) in New York.

Justice Parker achieved a strong number of votes in a tightly contested field of 22 candidates. This outstanding result reflects the high international regard for both Justice Parker and his work on the ICTY

bench, and Australian participation in international criminal tribunals and courts.

Australia is committed to bringing to justice those responsible for war crimes

in the former Yugoslavia. The work of the ICTY

is invaluable in prosecuting and sentencing those involved in such war crimes Australia is keen to see those responsible for such heinous acts brought to account under the ICTY’s completion strategy by 2008.

International Criminal Tribunals – Security Council

Resolution 1534 – War Criminals

On 29 March 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a joint press release on the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1534. Extracts from the release follow:

The Australian Government welcomes the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1534 on 26 March 2004 reaffirming the need to bring war criminals to justice before the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

.

…

Four men accused of particularly egregious crimes were named in the resolution. They are Radovan Karadzic

, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina in relation to the former Yugoslavia, and Felicien Kabuga in relation to Rwanda

.

The Australian Government calls on all States to intensify their efforts to ensure that these four men are captured and surrendered to the Tribunals as soon as possible.

Regardless of when they are captured, and notwithstanding the Tribunals’ completion strategies, the Government believes these four men must be tried in the Tribunals.

The Australian Government remains committed to ensuring justice for the victims of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

.

Terrorism – Australia

On 13 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the National Press Club on Australia and the threat of global terrorism

. Extracts from the speech follow:

No country can combat terrorism

on its own – it is only through cooperation that we will get the fullest possible picture of the current and emerging nature of terrorism – and how best to fight it. Cooperation between Muslim and non-Muslim countries has been vital in the progress so far. The Government is taking steps to prevent terrorist attacks through enhanced international cooperation across many fronts:

• police, security and intelligence agencies

• border and transport security

• the disruption of terrorist finances

• political coordination between governments

Australia has put in place a network of bilateral counter terrorism

Memoranda of Understanding with nine countries in the region – to underpin practical cooperation. Our MOU with Indonesia, for example, provided the basis for the excellent cooperation between the Australian and Indonesian police forces in the aftermath of the Bali and JW Marriot (Jakarta) bombings which has helped hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Australia recognises that helping countries to develop their own capabilities to fight terrorism

is as important as operational-level cooperation. Importantly, in February this year, I co-chaired with my Indonesian counterpart, Dr Wirajuda, a regional ministerial meeting on counter terrorism in Bali. With 25 countries represented, this meeting gave fresh political impetus to the regional campaign against terrorism. It identified practical ways of building regional cooperation which are being pursued as we speak.

…

Australia’s counter-terrorism

efforts in the Asia Pacific draw upon and complement the broader international coalition against terrorism

. We work especially closely with strategic partners like Japan and the United Kingdom who are committed to combating terrorism in the Asia Pacific. We coordinate with initiatives like APEC’s Counter-Terrorism Task Force and the G8’s Counter-Terrorism Assistance Group. We are working to build regional counter-terrorism capabilities through established organisations such the ASEAN

Regional Forum, the Pacific Islands Forum and the Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering.

And, importantly, Australia remains firmly committed to working within the United Nations on terrorism

. The UN has a critical role to play in setting and monitoring international standards against terrorism, including through international conventions, facilitating counter-terrorism

capacity-building assistance, and preventing the financing of terrorism.

…

This Government will not retreat into isolationism…we will not cower…and we will not leave our allies to labour alone. We will confront this struggle together with our neighbours, with the international community and with the US.

On 15 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release announcing the publication of Australia’s first White Paper on terrorism: Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia. An extract from the release follows:

Australia faces a serious threat from international terrorism

and we must prepare for this reality. As a Western democratic country, our values of peace, religious freedom, liberty and tolerance put us squarely in the terrorists’ sights.

…

The White Paper details the nature and international dimensions of the evolving terrorist

threat to Australia. It highlights its manifestations globally and in our region and how our interests at home and abroad are endangered.

…

The White Paper outlines the Australian Government’s international response – what we have already done and our on-going efforts to diminish the threat. It also underlines our strong commitment to greater cooperation with our regional partners, traditional allies and other members of the global community.

The Paper demonstrates that terrorism

must be challenged in a clear-sighted and forceful way by Australia and other communities under threat, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

It also reflects the high priority the Government places on dealing with this difficult issue and on keeping the public fully informed of the extent of the threat to Australia’s interests.

Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism Declarations – Australia-ASEAN

Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism

On 1 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release announcing the signing of a Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism with ASEAN

. An extract from the release follows:

This Declaration reflects our shared determination to work together as a region to eliminate international terrorism and reinforces the unprecedented levels of cooperation Australia has developed with ASEAN

countries in fighting this threat.

Australia is providing extensive assistance to boost counter-terrorism

measures in areas such as law enforcement, border control and transport security.

Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism – United Nations

On 18 October 2004, Mr Ben Playle, Second Secretary for the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Sixth Committee on measures to eliminate international terrorism

. Extracts from the statement follow:

The need for UN Member States to consider what further measures can be taken to eliminate international terrorism

and to work together to that end is, unfortunately, all too pressing.

…

The United Nations

General Assembly must continue to play a key role in countering the evolving terrorist

threat. Its conventions and resolutions have set valuable international standards to guide our efforts. A comprehensive convention against terrorism would provide further authority and impetus to global counter-terrorism

efforts. Australia also continues to strongly support efforts to finalise the draft convention against nuclear terrorism.

…

Australia acknowledges the Security Council

’s continuing contribution to the UN’s counterterrorism efforts, including through the adoption of Security Council Resolutions 1525, 1535, 1540 and 1566. We welcome efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the 1267 sanctions regime.

Terrorism – Counter-Terrorism – United Nations

– 1267 Committee

On 13 September 2004, H E Mr John Dauth

LVO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the United Nations Security Council on countering terrorism

through the 1267 Committee. An extract from the statement follows:

The pressing challenge, rightly identified by the Monitoring Group, is to ensure the 1267 Committee’s Consolidated List remains responsive to these developments. Member States must contribute to the ongoing improvement and revision of the List. Australia played a leading role in having Jemaah Islamiyah and associated individuals listed in October 2002. We remain alert to any developments that might require revised or additional listings and urge other Member States to do likewise. Governments need to ensure that, as Al Qaida and affiliated terrorist

groups mutate, they have the tools to cut-off those terrorists’ finances and other support.

…

Improving the effectiveness of the 1267 regime also requires improved implementation by Member States. Many have limited capacity to meet their obligations. Australia supports ongoing efforts to facilitate better national implementation and reporting. We see the Monitoring Group’s closer coordination with the Counter-Terrorism Committee

, and with other UN and regional bodies and Member States engaged in related work, as crucial in this respect.

Terrorism – Philippines

On 23 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning counter-terrorism

in the region. Extracts from the release follow:

Today I was pleased to welcome the Philippines Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mrs Delia Domingo-Albert, to Australia.

…

Mrs Domingo-Albert and I had useful discussions today about the on-going counter-terrorism

effort in the region. We noted the continuing threat posed by terrorism and reaffirmed our determination to continue to work with our regional partners to remove this scourge. Australia is providing a $5 million package of counter-terrorism assistance to the Philippines announced during the Prime Minister Howard’s visit to the Philippines in July 2003.

…

We also welcomed the decision to encourage a summit between ASEAN

, Australia and New Zealand later this year, which marks the 30th anniversary of Australian-ASEAN relations.

On 27 April 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson

, issued a joint press release on the reduction of terrorism risks in the Philippines

. An extract from the release follows:

We are pleased to announce a $1.3 million initiative assisting the Philippines

to strengthen port security and to develop and implement port security plans.

Australia will work in partnership with the Philippines

to develop a national strategic framework for port security. This will help reduce security risks from terrorism

incidents in port facilities.

The 18-month Port Security Capacity Building Project, funded by AusAID and managed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), will also assist the Philippines

to meet the 1 July 2004 deadline for compliance with the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS).

The Code forms part of a new global security regime for international shipping. It obliges countries to take preventive measures against security incidents that affect international shipping.

In addition to the development of a national strategic framework to enhance security of ports in the Philippines

, DOTARS will provide an in-country adviser to assist with the development of policy and regulations. The department will provide training to improve the capacity of port authorities to develop and implement port security plans.

The project is part of the Australian Government’s three-year $5 million Philippines

Counter-Terrorism Assistance initiative. This package aims to build the capacity of key Philippines Government agencies to combat terrorism

with a particular focus on law enforcement, border control, port security and regional cooperation.

The other components of Australia’s counter-terrorism

assistance to the Philippines

are progressing well. The $3.65 million AusAID/AFP law enforcement counter-terrorism

capacity building project was launched on 20 April 2004. Document fraud equipment and training have been provided to the Philippines Bureau of Immigration and initial activities to strengthen regional security cooperation have taken place in southern Philippines.

In October 2004, the Australian Government committed a further $5 million to its Philippines

Counter-Terrorism Assistance Package, taking the total value to $10 million, and extended the program from three to five years.

Terrorism – Proliferation

On 30 April 2004, Mr David Mason, Deputy Head of the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations

in Vienna, delivered a statement to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference concerning the safety and security of peaceful nuclear programs. An extract from the statement follows:

The framework for a response to the danger of nuclear terrorism

exists in the form of the NPT based nuclear non-proliferation regime. Strengthening the non-proliferation regime will raise the barriers to misuse of sensitive materials and technology by both state and non-state actors. We have outlined priority actions in other statements including global application of the Additional Protocol, enhanced physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities, and effective domestic controls on sensitive materials and technologies including export controls.

Australia welcomes adoption of the UN Security Council

non-proliferation resolution as a timely and appropriate response to the serious threat of non-state actors acquiring WMD and of WMD proliferation generally. As a clear threat to international peace and security these issues fall squarely within the Security Council’s mandate.

On 5 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled “International Security – Making Progress in Uncertain Times”. An extract from the speech follows:

The unanimous adoption of UNSC resolution 1540 on 28 April is important for improved international cooperation to counter the WMD proliferation threat.

It demonstrates the important role of the Security Council

in forging an international consensus to prevent terrorists and other non-state actors from acquiring WMD…

… with all states now required to implement effective domestic non-proliferation controls on WMD-related items.

On 8 November 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Asia-Pacific conference on nuclear safeguards and security in relation to protecting against nuclear and radiological terrorism

. Extracts from the speech follow:

I am pleased to say that Australia has been at the forefront of these efforts – through our commitment to the Proliferation Security Initiative…

… our participation in the coalition efforts to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance with no fewer than 17 UN Security Council resolutions…

… and as a committed and active member of the multilateral arms control and disarmament treaties established over decades.

These treaties remain the international community’s first line of defence against the misuse of sensitive materials and technology.

…

Multilaterally, Australia welcomed adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 as a timely and appropriate response to the threat of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Australia is ready and willing to work with your countries, and to provide what assistance we can, to promote implementation of UNSCR 1540 in the Asia-Pacific region.

Early and full implementation will ensure the international community derives full benefit from this historic resolution.

Terrorism – Regional Security

On 5 February 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, issued a press release concerning regional efforts to combat terrorism

. Extracts from the release follow:

I co-chaired a successful meeting with my counterpart from Indonesia, H E Dr Hassan Wirajuda, – the Bali Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism from 4 to 5 February… The meeting was attended by 25 countries, with strong Ministerial representation.

…

This landmark Meeting delivered clear and practical outcomes. It highlighted Australia’s strong commitment to working together with Asia-Pacific partners to tackle the very real and grave threat terrorism

poses to the region and beyond. It is also another example of the benefits flowing from the excellent cooperation that exists between Indonesia and Australia.

…

In order to ensure follow through on their recommendations, Ministers agreed to establish two working groups. One working group will be led by Australia. This group will consist of senior legal officials from the region and will identify areas for improvement and assistance to strengthen regional legal frameworks, including in the areas of mutual legal assistance and extradition for terrorist

-related offences, implementation of UN Security Council

Resolutions and the 12 UN counter-terrorism

related conventions. The second working group will be led by Indonesia. It will bring together senior law enforcement officials to share operational experience and exchange information, including on criminal intelligence.

On 3 July 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison

issued a joint press release announcing the opening of the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation. Extracts from release follow:

The Australian Government welcomes today’s opening of the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC) by President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

This Centre will boost the capacity of law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism

and other transnational crimes in our region and is a tangible sign of the cooperative determination by Australia and Indonesia to combat regional threats.

…

Australia’s contribution to the Centre of $36.8 million over five years will include expertise, technical support and international training courses.

On 3 August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a joint press release concerning efforts to combat terrorism

in the region. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia will host a gathering in Canberra of international legal experts as part of efforts to boost the fight against terrorism

in our region on 4-5 August 2004.

…

We will be working with regional countries to build legal regimes that make it harder for terrorists. Strong and seamless legal frameworks to counter terrorism

are just as important as an effective first response to a terrorist incident.

The legal experts will consider what more can be done in the region to strengthen anti-terrorism

laws, in keeping with our international legal obligations, and cooperative arrangements for gathering evidence and extraditing terrorist suspects.

Transnational Organised Crime – The Bali Process

On 8 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, delivered a speech to the Bali Process Senior Official’s Meeting on the Bali Process. Extracts from the speech follow:

Last month Australia ratified two major international instruments in its fight against transnational organised crime.

The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its supplementary Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air will enter into force for Australia later this month.

Australia also intends to ratify the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, subject to the passage of implementing legislation.

I would urge all regional countries which have not yet ratified these instruments to do so.

…

The establishment of legislation to criminalise people smuggling and trafficking in persons has been another major success.

Model legislation developed by Australia and China has assisted participant countries draft their own domestic laws criminalising people smuggling and trafficking in persons.

18 regional countries have made use of the model legislation and 19 now have legislation in place…

… with many more countries considering legislative changes.

This is an important development.

With legislation in place, countries can conclude the bilateral agreements and arrangements on mutual assistance in criminal matters necessary to bolster extradition and prosecution efforts.

Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – The Bahamas

On 3 March 2004, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison

, issued a press release on Australia’s MOU with the Bahamas

to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia has signed a new agreement with the Bahamas

to exchange financial intelligence to combat money laundering, terrorism and other serious crimes, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison

, said today.

Under a new bilateral arrangement, Australia will strengthen its financial intelligence links with the Bahamas

to further boost global cooperation in the ongoing battle against money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

This arrangement has been formalised under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed recently by the Director of AUSTRAC, Mr Neil Jensen, and the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Bahamas

.

…

The agreement further develops a strong cooperative international network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) to combat transnational organised crime, which are able to develop and exchange financial intelligence quickly and effectively – providing investigative agencies with timely and comprehensive intelligence.

The Bahamas

is an important strategic partner for AUSTRAC as a first link to the Caribbean region, where money laundering has been identified as a concern.

AUSTRAC is now able to exchange financial intelligence with 26 countries, with others signed up to agreements including Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Guernsey, South Korea, Isle of Man, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the USA, Vanuatu and Venezuela.

Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – Bulgaria

and Romania

On 5 November 2004, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison

, issued a press release on Australia’s MOU with Bulgaria

and Romania

to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. An extract from the release follows:

Exchange instruments with Bulgaria

and Romania

were signed recently on behalf of Australia by the Director of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), Mr Neil Jensen, and the Heads of the Bulgarian and Romanian Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) at meetings of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units in Bangkok.

“These agreements mean that AUSTRAC and its key strategic partners working at FIUs in Bulgaria and Romania can work together on financial intelligence of interest,” Senator Ellison

said.

“There is increasing recognition, both in Australia and internationally, of the key role of FIUs and of financial intelligence in detecting and taking action against money laundering, transnational crime and terrorism,” he said.

Transnational Organised Crime – Memorandum of Understanding on Exchange of Financial Intelligence to Combat Money Laundering, Terrorism and other Serious Crimes – Indonesia

On 4 February 2004, the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock

, issued a press release concerning Australia’s MOU with Indonesia to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia and Indonesia have agreed to exchange financial intelligence to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock

announced today.

In a significant step in developing financial intelligence links to combat terrorism, money laundering and other major crimes, a memorandum of understanding has been developed between Indonesia’s financial intelligence unit, the PPATK and Australia’s AUSTRAC.

The MOU has been signed today by the Attorney-General

and the head of PPATK, Mr Yunus Husein, at the Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism in Bali.

…

The ability to share intelligence internationally is vital in the prevention and detection of financial crimes, money laundering and other serious crimes. This agreement will enhance the ability of AUSTRAC to prevent terrorism by targeting money laundering and other suspect transactions.

Transnational Organised Crime – United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime – Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (People Smuggling Protocol)

On 21 June 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer

, and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Christopher Ellison

, issued a joint press release on Australia’s ratification of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime

. Extracts from the release follow:

Australia is now a party to a global instrument in the fight against organised crime following the ratification of two key UN statutes which come into force this Friday (25 June).

This is a further example of Australia’s global leadership in this area, especially the fight against people smuggling and trafficking in persons.

The UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime

and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land Sea and Air were ratified by Australia on 27 May 2004.

The Convention and the Protocol provide a critical framework for international co-operation in the fight against organised crime and people smuggling. Australia was active in the negotiation of these treaties and is among the first Western countries to ratify them.

These UN instruments are aimed at criminalising offences committed by organised criminal groups, combating money laundering and facilitating international cooperation in the fight against transnational organised crime.

…

Australia will soon ratify another important treaty, the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.

Australia’s ratification of the Convention against Transnational Crime and its People Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons protocols is another example of the Government’s commitment to combating all forms of transnational organised crime.

United Nations – Convention on the Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel

On 22 October 2004, Mr Ben Playle, Second Secretary for the Australian Delegation to the United Nations in New York, delivered a statement to the Sixth Committee on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel

. Extracts from the statement follow:

Australia remains strongly supportive of all efforts to strengthen the safety and security of UN and associated personnel, both at headquarters and in the field. Our work in the Sixth Committee is an essential element of those efforts. Australia commends the efforts of the Working Group to extend the scope of protection afforded by the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel.

The decision of the Working Group last week to adopt the Chairman’s text of the draft Optional Protocol

as the basis for work is extremely significant. Australia welcomes this decision, considering that it places us on the best possible footing toward eventual conclusion of a Protocol which achieves the common objective of ensuring a more effective legal basis for protection of UN and associated personnel.

…

The task ahead is now clear: namely, to extend the scope of protection under the Convention by reaching agreement on substantive textual proposals for individual articles of the Protocol.

…

Differences remain, in particular, on the scope of operations to be included in Article 2(1). My delegation continues to support extending the automatic application of the Convention to the broadest range of UN operations. Australia also continues to support recognising that a particular mission involves risk by reference to its purpose, rather than the specific situation in which it was established. Accordingly, Australia supports alternative A in Article 2(1). We appreciate that other delegations have differing views, and look forward to a further exchange of opinions on this point.

---

^[1] For an overview of Australia’s submission, please see the Executive Summary of the Continental Shelf Submission of Australia on the website of the United Nations Division of Oceans and the Law of the Sea <http://www.

un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf>.

^[2] The Maritime Identification Zone was subsequently renamed the Maritime Identification System.