 |
Chapter 12
Consultation with interested groups
Consultation with interested groups
12.1 Depending on the subject matter of a treaty, there is a wide range
of interested groups with whom the Government should properly consult
in relation to entering into treaties. These groups include trade unions,
industry, environmental groups, and many other non-government organisations.
12.2 The important issue of consultation with the States concerning entering
into treaties is considered in Chapter 13.
The Government's policy on consultation
12.3 In relation to the Government's policy on consultation with interested
groups, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has advised that:
The methods of consultation employed are adapted to the needs of each
treaty, although there are clear general principles which underlie the
consultation process. Those principles are:
(i) The Minister with primary responsibility for a treaty makes an
assessment early in the negotiating process about who should be consulted.
(ii) All groups whose interests might be substantially affected by
a treaty (were Australia to become a party to it) are consulted.
(iii) Ministers invite a representative of non-governmental organisations
to participate in treaty negotiating delegations, where such participation
will significantly enhance the ability of those groups to have their
interests taken into account during negotiations. In making this judgment,
Ministers also consider the balance of the delegation and the level
of interest of the group in the treaty.
(v) The Minister informs the Cabinet of the positions taken by the
groups consulted when seeking approval for a negotiating position, or
when seeking agreement to become party to a treaty.[1]
Need for whole of government consideration
of treaties
12.4 A 'whole of Government' approach to treaty making aims to ensure
that all relevant Commonwealth Government departments are consulted during
the development of a treaty and that all relevant interested groups are
also consulted. For example, if one particular Government department has
the carriage of a treaty, and fails to consult widely with other Government
departments and authorities, it may fail to appreciate the broader ramifications
of the treaty under negotiation for some interested groups that may be
outside the usual range of groups which are consulted by that Department.
A whole of Government approach to treaty making may help to avoid such
a situation and facilitate more effective consultation.
12.5 Mr Ewing, of the Australian Mining Industry Council, expressed concern
that certain treaties were not considered from a 'whole of Government'
perspective:
One specific example of an area where the mining industry feels that
its interests can be adversely affected by the Commonwealth entering
into treaties without proper discussion is that the UN has before it
a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Article 24 of
that draft talks about indigenous people having the right to their traditional
medicines and health practices - including the right to protection of
vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. There are other references
to minerals in that draft declaration.
It has been the tradition with most treaties which the government enters
into that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade handles it - often
without undergoing whole of government, if you like, discussion even
on the impact of some of the activities which it is looking at implementing
in a treaty which we might sign off on. Of course, the reference to
minerals in this declaration that I have just mentioned does have the
potential to undermine significantly Australia's doctrine, if you like,
of Crown ownership of minerals.
I think things like that need a whole of government approach and need
maximum community consultation. I am not putting a position that the
government cannot arrive at a particular decision which adversely affects
the mining industry or any other segment of the community. What I am
suggesting is that there is enormous scope in this area for individual
departments to make a recommendation which leads to a signing off on
a treaty which no-one has ever dreamt is going to have the impact it
does down the track.
Similarly, the ILO Convention 169 is traditionally dealt with by the
Department of Industrial Relations. That document has reference to ownership
of mineral rights and consultation of Aboriginal people. Again, it has
not been the custom, as I understand it, for even the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade to be involved in the definition of such declarations
in their draft stages. It is only when a recommendation is formulated.
Again, we do not have a proper whole of government response. If there
were parliamentary scrutiny of such documents, the possibility or likelihood
even of unfortunate and unforeseen consequences is minimised significantly.[2]
Consultation with industry
12.6 Industry's concerns are most evident in the field of industrial
relations, environmental and trade treaties. In some areas, essential
technical and commercial information will only be possessed by relevant
industry bodies. In assessing the value of entering a treaty against the
national interest it is increasingly important that industry is consulted,
and where necessary, involved in the treaty making process.
12.7 Mr Rick Farley, representing the National Farmers' Federation, commented:
While NFF is not in principle opposed to Australia's using the United
Nations system to highlight truly global problems and to seek
cooperative solutions, it is most concerned to ensure that federal governments
commit themselves to becoming much more critical in their assessment
of national interest issues, such as trade competitiveness and employment
impacts, before they sign up to, or further develop, international obligations.[3]
12.8 The National Farmers' Federation pointed out:
In essence, treaties are legal commitments and at times can affect
Australian commercial and community life just as much as domestic laws.
With early and comprehensive participation among domestic interests
in Australia, and critical assessments of domestic impacts, Australia
can continue to play a helpful role in international governance while
preserving and promoting the priority interests of industry and the
general community.[4]
12.9 The New South Wales Farmers Association pointed out, however, that
consultation is not meaningful unless sufficient time is given by the
Government to allow industry groups to respond. Mr Hodgkinson told the
Committee:
It has been our experience when we do get into the consultative process
that the government department takes two years to bring something up,
then throws it at us and says, 'Please reply within two weeks', and
that is then called consultation. If five or six of them do it on the
one day - which is not uncommon, and I have seen it happen - it just
means that consultation does not exist. It is deemed to have happened
but it does not exist.[5]
12.10 The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry thought that the
private sector should play an important part in the development of treaties.
The Chamber's submission recommended that:
... the private sector be actively engaged, ex ante and in a real-time
sense, in the treaty-making process (except for reasons of confidentiality
or national security). The involvement of the private sector should
include devising the breadth and depth of any treaty framework, developing
strategies and tactics for the negotiation processes, and active front-line
participation in that process.[6]
12.11 Mr Soutter, from the Business Council of Australia, pointed out
the problems that can arise when industry is not properly consulted in
the treaty making process. He gave as an example a tax treaty with New
Zealand which does not impose any requirement upon the tax officials of
either side to come to a speedy determination of issues which may arise
between them. He noted that this 'flaw in the treaty' was the result of
lack of proper consultation, and had serious consequences for business.[7]
Evidence of increased efforts at consultation
12.12 The Committee received evidence from a range of business groups
and companies about their concerns with the treaty making processes. However,
there seemed to be some agreement that the Government was making a greater
effort to consult industry on relevant conventions.
12.13 Mr Rick Farley, from the National Farmers' Federation, submitted
that:
While Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, are opening treaty participation processes to industry and
community NGOs, the fundamental imbalance in treaty-making roles between
the executive and the legislature remain.[8]
12.14 Mr Hadler, also from the National Farmers' Federation, stated:
Mr Chairman, you raised questions about what consultation on treaties
NFF has been involved in. As I said in my preliminary comments, NFF
has been involved on a regular basis in consultation with various departments
and as a member of a delegation. We believe that the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
take their consultation responsibility seriously. We have been pleased
with their efforts in this regard.[9]
12.15 Australia's Manufacturing, Engineering and Construction Industry
Association also commented on improvements in the Government's efforts
to consult industry in relation to the treaty making process. The Association
stated:
In contrast to the above [the Basel Convention and the Climate Change
Convention], the Federal Government has consulted extensively with industry
in relation to APEC. The APEC 'free trade' agreement reached in November
1994 by APEC leaders in Bogor, Indonesia, was a statement of principles
only. Industry is a vital contributor to the process of refining the
Bogor Declaration into implementing detail. The Federal Government is
consulting closely with industry [in] the lead-up to the next meeting
of APEC Leaders and the consultative processes implemented in this instance
act as a good guide for future consultation.[10]
12.16 Mr Ewing, from the Australian Mining Industry Council, however,
described the consultation as 'spasmodic':
It [consultation] has been, at the best, spasmodic. There are certain
treaties where the view of the mining industry is deliberately sought
by government, but I think there have been many others where we, if
you like, have become aware of them through other sources rather than
through a request to be involved by government. Certainly I would suggest
that - and this is an estimate rather than necessarily a precise number
- over the last, say, four to five years we would have had requests
to be involved in only about four to five consultations leading up to
a treaty making process.[11]
12.17 The Committee also notes that there are cases in which members
of minor parties in the Commonwealth Parliament have participated in delegations
to negotiate international treaties. For example, Senator Spindler actively
participated in the Australian delegation to the Copenhagen United Nations
Summit for Social Development earlier in 1995.
12.18 Even with this improvement in consultation, interested persons
may miss out on participating in the consultation process because they
may not be identified as interested persons by the Government. Dr Herr
has argued that there needs to be a more formal parliamentary mechanism
to allow everyone who is interested to contribute to the treaty making
process.[12]
Consultation with community groups
12.19 Consultation with non-government organisations (NGOs) on treaty
matters takes place in a variety of fora. The Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade holds meetings called NGO Briefings with selected non-government
organisations.
12.20 Occasionally, members of non-government organisations are included
on delegations to international negotiating meetings on the text of treaties.[13]
For example, the Committee heard evidence from a Greenpeace representative
that he had participated in an Australian Government delegation to renegotiate
the international tropical timbers agreement and had been an observer
to the negotiations on the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.[14]
12.21 On the one hand, the Committee received evidence that non-government
organisations are consulted in relation to treaties. However, the Committee
also received evidence that the choice of which groups are consulted on
which treaties is a somewhat arbitrary process and could be improved.[15]
12.22 The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's report,
A Review of Australia's Efforts to Promote and Protect Human Rights,
called for resources to be allocated for more effective community consultation
and education.[16]
12.23 The forum for consultation has also been the subject of debate.
Mr Rodney Croome, of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, has observed
that community consultation will not be achieved merely through more consultation
with Parliament. He recommended the establishment of an independent Treaties
Commission to facilitate consultation with the community.[17] Mr Soutter,
from the Business Council of Australia, also argued that consultation
should go beyond the Parliament, beyond the States and into the wider
community.[18]
The need to improve the availability of
information about treaties
12.24 There appears to be some evidence that the Commonwealth has done
much more in recent years in consulting relevant non-government organisations
and industry groups.[19] Concern, however, remains about the lack of transparency
in the treaty process from the viewpoint of community groups and individuals.[20]
12.25 Members of the public who appeared before the Committee and made
submissions to the Committee complained about the lack of accessibility
of information about treaties.[21] They were particularly concerned about
the absence of material in public libraries and the media. Mr Darbishire,
who is President of the Brighton Branch of Grey Power S.A., complained
that the journal Insight[22] is not available in local libraries,
and that he was unable to obtain a copy of it.[23] Mr Craig also requested
that Insight be made available in public libraries.[24]
12.26 Mr Gierke requested the publication of decisions and opinions of
international committees and tribunals which are now relevant to Australia.[25]
He noted that although people are presumed to know the law, it is not
possible to know about treaty obligations if the material is not as accessible
as statutes and case law.[26]
12.27 Mr Hannaford complained that publicity about treaties is not reaching
the general public. He stated in evidence before the Committee that:
The public do not know about these treaties. They are not allowed to
know, apparently, according to the media. You speak to the average person
in the street - they do not even know these treaties exist apart from
one or two of them that we do get publicity about. Only after they are
introduced do we get publicity. We need the publicity before the darn
things are presented - before they need to be signed or ratified or
whatever. That is when we are not getting the publicity. We must have
that publicity so the public can think about them and say something
to their representatives.[27]
12.28 Dr Gerry Bates also argued that it is imperative that information
on treaties reach the community, noting:
Information is democracy. The greater the degree of information which
is able to be released during the course of the conduct of the negotiations,
the better.[28]
12.29 The United Nations Association called on the Government to increase
its efforts to educate Australians about the United Nations. Mr Purnell,
the National Administrator of the United Nations Association, submitted:
That the Government [should] take steps to educate and inform the Australian
community about the benefits derived from Australia's participation
in the international treaty network.[29]
12.30 The Public Interest Advocacy Centre thought the lack of transparency
was evidence of a 'democratic deficit'. The Centre submitted:
The greatest 'democratic deficit' with regard to treaty-making is in
the arena of communication and public participation (Kinley 1995). This
is evidenced by:
- the lack of public awareness of the treaties Australia is party to,
and the background, content, obligations and ramifications of those
treaties;
- the common sense of a lack of an opportunity to have a say about the
development and implementation of treaties;
- the increasing public concern about the implications of "globalisation"
and "internationalisation" and uncertainty about our identity
as citizens of States/nations/the globe;
- the developing senses of 'sovereignty' and 'self-determination' of
people;
- the perception of unfairness or imbalance held by many consumer and
community groups about global processes generally, treaty-making included,
that powerful corporate or commercial interests are having an untoward
influence.[30]
12.31 The Centre proposed that communication to the public about treaties
could be improved by :
- ready public access (electronic and paper) to copies of treaties and
explanatory materials (direct from DFAT, but also from public libraries,
InterNet etc);
- a specific budget allocation for community awareness programs on treaties;
- adequate funding of independent community agencies, such as the proposed
Human Rights and Discrimination Law Centre, to provide information clearinghouses
and community education on international law developments;
- public notifications (newspaper ads, media releases, InterNet etc)
of the ratification of treaties.[31]
12.32 Even lawyers find it difficult to obtain access to treaties in
order to advise their clients. Mr David Bennett QC noted that they are
not accessible in the same manner as legislation or Hansard, and
that the time and effort taken to find them adds to the costs of legal
advice and litigation. He suggested that treaties should all be put on
a database similar to the SCALE database currently run by the Attorney-General's
Department.[32]
12.33 The Australian Law Reform Commission has also expressed concern
about the lack of transparency in the treaty making process, and the lack
of publicly accessible information on treaties. Mr Alan Rose, President
of the Commission, suggested to the Committee that the proposed joint
parliamentary treaties committee have access to, or develop, a database
of all treaties, both multilateral and bilateral, to which Australia is
a party, which should also contain full documentation of treaties currently
under negotiation.[33]
12.34 Such a database could then be made available to State parliaments,
local government, and to the public generally through such means as the
InterNet. Mr Rose concluded:
This would enable any one of the parliamentary committees, at state
or federal level, in any of the areas of broad popular concern - human
rights, environment, industrial relations et cetera - to have access,
not in a bowdlerised or popularised form, but the actual documents themselves,
including all of the explanatory material that is available publicly,
for the purposes of conducting consultations or debate. In our view,
it is as important that the treaty list and the treaties themselves
be publicly available as it is for the statutes of the Commonwealth,
subordinate legislation and so forth to be available.[34]
12.35 Mr Christopher Lamb, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, informed the Committee that the Department has a 'strong commitment'
to consultation, and that it will use technology, as it improves, to facilitate
that process.[35] He also noted that the Department is looking at producing
commentaries on treaties as follows:
A typical commentary - and we have only done a couple of tests - would
have in one column, or on the negotiating table, the language agreed
so far [on the treaty]. In another column - a much longer one, of course
- there would be a description of where that language came from, what
it means and why the sponsors of that language wanted to put it there;
and how that would relate to other parts of the instrument or beyond
that instrument to other instruments in related fields.
That is particularly applicable to human rights instruments where you
might want to relate something in, say, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child or the Convention Against Torture to an umbrella paragraph in
the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and then go back from there
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People can then see where
that came from, what it means and, at implementation stages, how they
should work with that language.[36]
12.36 The development of such treaty commentaries would not only be extremely
useful for Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, the courts and
the general community, but would also be useful internationally, as there
is very little published information giving such a comprehensive guide
to the meaning of treaties.
Information about treaties in electronic
form
12.37 The Committee notes that there is an increasing range of information
about treaties available on the InterNet.[37] While commercial providers
offer information services on the InterNet, the Committee notes that there
are public legal information service providers on the InterNet, such as
the recently established Australasian Legal Information Institute.
Australasian Legal Information Institute
12.38 The Australasian Legal Information Institute was established on
1 January 1995 by the University of New South Wales and the University
of Technology, Sydney.[38] The Institute has been funded by a grant from
the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The joint project
was supported by the Australian Council of Law Deans.
12.39 The purpose of the Australasian Legal Information Institute is
to provide legal researchers with free access to legal materials that
are already in the public domain. The Australasian Legal Information Institute
world wide web (www) site (http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au) includes the
following (as at 30 May 1995):
- The full text of the 1207 Commonwealth statutes ... marked up in 'rich
hypertext' and searchable by both user-controlled and pre-stored free
text searches.... The statutes are consolidated with all amendments
as at 17 May 1995.
- Over 600 Commonwealth statutory rules (those passed since 1989 and
subsequently amended) in full text ... consolidated as at 22 May 1995.
The text of the legislation is provided by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's
Department and its SCALE system, and converted into HTML (hypertext mark-up
language) and searchable form by AustLII.
- Two substantial new Discussion Papers from the New South Wales Law
Reform Commission (NSWLRC), on the subjects of People with an Intellectual
Disability and the Criminal Justice System (DP 35) and Defamation
(DP 32). More NSWLRC documents are being added.
- An Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) Report,
Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials. More AIJA
documents are being added.
- The Justice Statement (May 1995), the Commonwealth Government's
response to the 1994 report of the Access to Justice Advisory Committee,
as an example of AustLII providing government policy statements via
InterNet as soon as they are announced.
- The www version of Murdoch University School of Law's electronic law
journal, E-Law. All issues of E-Law are included, with links from the
journal to other web resources.[39]
Human rights database
12.40 The Australasian Legal Information Institute is also involved in
providing technical support for the human rights database that is being
set up by the Human Rights Centre in the University of New South Wales.
The Human Rights Centre recently obtained funding from the Attorney-General's
Department to establish a National Human Rights Database and Documentation
Centre at the University of New South Wales.
12.41 The Human Rights Centre considers that the establishment of a human
rights database and documentation centre will assist to remedy the lack
of information currently available to the public about treaty making in
general and human rights bodies
[T]he first step in making the procedures and jurisprudence of the
human rights treaty bodies better known and understood in Australia
must be the creation of a national database and documentation centre.
Whilst the documents of these bodies remain largely inaccessible in
Australia, misconceptions about human rights, the treaty system and
Australia's human rights policies will persist.[40]
12.42 In its submission to the Committee, the Human Rights Centre noted
that three priorities have been identified for the human rights database:
- the cataloguing of documents, monographs, periodicals and periodical
articles held in the Centre;
- the provision of full texts of Australia's periodic reports to the
major human rights treaty bodies and the summary records of their consideration
by the relevant treaty body; and
- the provision of full texts of views adopted by the Human Rights Committee,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee
on the Elimination of Torture on individual communications submitted
to them.[41]
Recently announced initiatives to improve
consultation and access to treaty materials
Human Rights Consultation and Coordination
12.43 The Government recently announced in The Justice Statement
that it would establish a regular Forum for non-government organisations
to participate in and to discuss domestic human rights concerns. This
Forum would be in addition to the forum currently established by the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade which discusses human rights from an international
perspective.[42]
12.44 The Statement claims that the Forum would provide non-government
organisations with an opportunity to exchange information and to discuss
domestic human rights issues and developments. The Forum will also be
used to involve non-government organisations in the preparation of reports
under the international human rights treaties - for example under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Human Rights and Discrimination Law Centre
12.45 The Statement also included the proposal to establish a new specialist
community legal centre, the Human Rights and Discrimination Law Centre.[43]
The Centre is to provide specialist advice and legal assistance to parties
involved in discrimination complaints. The Centre will provide advice
and collect information relating to discrimination and human rights issues.
It will make primary UN material and other key human rights publications
available to the public, and assist individuals and groups in their claims.[44]
12.46 The Centre will be provided with additional funding to undertake
a project review on the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual
preference including financial and property related issues. The Centre
will be funded to provide for four staff.
Conclusion and recommendations
12.47 The Committee is concerned that the public does not have access
to adequate information about treaties. The Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade currently provides the States and Territories, through the Standing
Committee on Treaties, with a schedule of treaties under consideration
by the Government. Recently, the Government announced that it would also
table this document in Parliament. While this move is to be applauded,
the Committee considers that this source of information about treaties
should be more readily accessible by the general public.
Recommendation 3:
That the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prepare a special publication
which provides information on the treaties under consideration by the
Government and make it available, free of charge, to all public libraries
in Australia.
12.48 The Committee considers that the establishment by the Government
of a treaties database, that would be readily accessible by the public
and free of charge, would help to overcome the problem of the lack of
publicly available information about treaties. Such a database would complement
the existing ad hoc information on the InterNet about treaties and be
an important source of information about the treaties to which Australia
is a party.
12.49 The Committee recognises that there will be costs involved in developing
appropriate treaties databases but believes that this is in the national
interest. Australia's ability to take an active part in the international
treaty regime depends on the maintenance of public support for the treaty
process. The lack of availability of material on treaties, the limited
consultation with community groups, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny
of the treaty making process is contributing to anxiety in sectors of
society about the United Nations and the role of treaties.
Recommendation 4:
That the Government fund a project for the establishment of a treaties
database, which would include:
- the full text of all multilateral treaties included in the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade's publication Select Documents on International
Affairs;
- any available explanatory material on these treaties; and
- decisions of international bodies which interpret these treaties,
such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the complaints
bodies of the International Labour Organisation.
The treaties database should be made available, free of charge, on the
InterNet (so that Commonwealth, State and local governments, universities,
schools, libraries and the general public may access it) and should also
be able to be accessed through Commonwealth Government bookshops, in the
same manner as the SCALE database which is maintained by the Attorney-General's
Department.
12.50 The Committee is concerned about the lack of transparency in the
treaty making process and in particular with the failure to educate the
community about treaties. Foremost of these concerns is the lack of availability
of information relating to treaties, such as full texts of treaties, the
travaux prparatoires (which are the documents detailing the negotiation
history of a treaty) and documents explaining treaties and their implications
to the interested public. Information should also be available as to the
status of Australia's negotiations, and which treaties are expected to
be signed or ratified in the future.
Recommendation 5:
That funding be provided to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
and the Attorney-General's Department for a joint project to publish information
on the meaning and interpretation of treaties, including collections of
interpretative decisions and the travaux prparatoires (records
of the negotiation proceedings) of treaties.
12.51 Of course, the appropriate consultation mechanism for treaties
will depend on the particular treaty. Nevertheless, the Government should
consider broadening the range of community groups it consults.
12.52 In some cases, the Government may only consult with a peak body
in relation to a particular interest group. However, in relation to some
groups, a peak body may not be as representative of that interest group
as the Government may believe. The Committee considers that the Government
should endeavour to consult widely with all relevant groups to overcome
such problems.
Recommendation 6:
That the Government increase its efforts to identify and consult the
groups which may be affected by a treaty which Australia proposes entering
into, and groups with expertise on the subject matter of the treaty or
its likely application in Australia.
- Mr C.R. Jones, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Submission
No. 93, Vol 6, pp 1151-1152.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 1 May 1995, p 70, per Mr G. Ewing.
- Mr R. Farley, Submission No. 3, Vol 1, p 19.
- Mr R. Farley, Submission No. 3, Vol 1, p 20.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 14 June 1995, p 750, per Mr D. Hodgkinson.
- Mr B. Davis, Submission No. 92, Vol 6, p 1111.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 469, per Mr A. Soutter.
- Mr R. Farley, Submission No. 3, Vol 1, p 19.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 1 May 1995, p 73, per Mr R. Hadler.
- Ms V. Filling, Submission No. 116, Vol 7, p 1534.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 1 May 1995, p 71, per Mr G. Ewing.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 454, per Dr R.A. Herr.
- A Funder, 'Treaty-making Procedures in Australia', (1994) Vol 5(4)
Public Law Review 289.
- Hansard SLCRC, 1 May 1995, p 75, per Mr I. Fry.
- Hansard SLCRC, 1 May 1995, p 77, per Mr I. Fry.
- Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, A Review
of Australia's Efforts to Promote and Protect Human Rights, AGPS,
Canberra, 1992: p 43. In its response to the Committee's recommendation,
the Government noted that it is the broad function of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to consult with community groups
on human rights issues generally. See Senator the Hon G. Evans QC, The
Government's Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade, "Australia's Efforts to Promote and
Protect Human Rights";, the Senate, 27 May 1993: p 7.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 442, per Mr R. Croome.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 446, per Mr A. Soutter.
- Mr M. Hogan, Submission No. 141, Vol 9, p 2105.
- A range of individuals commented that there could be greater public
consultation in relation to the Government's ratification of treaties
as follows: Mr B. Hannaford, Submission No. 4, Vol 1, p 22; Mrs T. McCallum,
Submission No. 22, Vol 2, p 234; Mr A. Joy, Submission No. 57, Vol 3,
p 479; B.A. Rocke, Submission No. 58, Vol 3, p 481; Mr W.J. Haskell,
Submission No. 49, Vol 2, p 429; Ms J. Orr, Submission No. 28, Vol 2,
p 264; Mrs A. Howe, Submission No. 32, Vol 2, p 272.
- For example, see Mr J. Bryson, Submission No. 2, Vol 1, p 11.
- Insight is published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade and contains lists of treaties under negotiation.
- Hansard, SCLRC, 25 July 1995, p 771, per Mr J. Darbishire.
Mr C. Clark also complained about the inaccessibility of Insight: Hansard,
SLCRC, 13 June 1995, p 580.
- Hansard, SCLRC, 25 July 1995, p 774, per Mr D. Craig.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 13 June 1995, p 539, per Mr J. Gierke.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 13 June 1995, p 540, per Mr J. Gierke.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 25 July 1995, p 778, per Mr B. Hannaford.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 506, per Dr G. Bates.
- Mr D. Purnell, Submission No. 69, Vol 3, pp 578-579.
- Mr M. Hogan, Submission No. 141, Vol 9, pp 2104-2106.
- Mr M. Hogan, Submission No. 141, Vol 9, pp 2104-2106.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 16 May 1995, pp 366-367, per Mr D. Bennett
QC. Professor G. Winterton agreed that this was a problem for lawyers:
Hansard, SLCRC, 16 May 1995, p 407.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 25 July 1995, p 790, per Mr A. Rose.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 25 July 1995, p 801, per Mr A. Rose.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 14 June 1995, p 662, per Mr C. Lamb.
- Hansard, SLCRC, 14 June 1995, p 755, per Mr C. Lamb.
- For example, the Multilaterals Project at the Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy, at Tufts University in the United States of America,
provides the texts of multilateral conventions in a range of subjects
including cultural protection, human rights, trade and commercial relations.
- The following outline of the activities of the Australasian Legal
Information Institute is based on information in G. Greenleaf and A.
Mowbray, 'Law via the InterNet: the Australasian Legal Information Institute',
(1995) 69(8) Australian Law Journal, pp 581-584.
- G. Greenleaf and A. Mowbray, 'Law via the InterNet: the Australasian
Legal Information Institute', (1995) 69(8) Australian Law Journal,
p 582.
- Ms S. Pritchard, Submission No. 157, Vol 10, p 2295.
- Ms S. Pritchard, Submission No. 157, Vol 10, p 2308.
- Attorney-General's Department, The Justice Statement, May 1995:
p 175.
- Attorney-General's Department, The Justice Statement, May 1995:
p 169.
- This may redress the problem raised about there being no independent
source of advice for people wishing to make complaints under the First
Optional Protocol: Hansard, SLCRC, 22 May 1995, p 444, per Mr
R. Croome.
|
 |
