The Abbott government is contemplating signing up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (about which there are serious worries, http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/14/beware-of-what-lurks-beneath-free-trade-agreements/) and to a “free trade” agreement to China. He seems to have told China that he will accept whatever is on offer at a certain date (http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/open-for-business/).
Labor should propose legislation requiring Parliamentary approval for treaties before ratification. At present the executive government, by virtue of the royal prerogative, can commit Australia bindingly to a treaty and then ask Parliament to legislate to implement the commitment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Australia). Instead, Parliament should have to authorise the commitment. The fact that under the US Constitution (art.2 para.2) the Senate has to approve a treaty gives US negotiators a strong hand.
See Hilary
Charlesworth , Madelaine Chiam, Devika Hovell, and George
Williams, No country is an
island : Australia and international law (Sydney: University
of New South Wales Press, 2006): “Australia’s obligations under a
treaty stem from the terms of the treaty itself, not from the
implementing legislation… there are legal ramifications for
Australia if its domestic legislation does not implement the
treaty obligations accurately”, p. 137. The implementation of the
AUSFTA in respect of the PBS was a case in point: “If… the United
States had determined that Australia’s legislation was not in
conformity with the AUSFTA terms, it could have refused to ratify
the treaty or it could have ratified the treaty and then brought
an action against Australia for breach of the AUSFTA. Either
situation would have involved serious consequences for Australia”,
p. 138.
Return to Home Page