FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL RENEWAL

Crafting a Model Constitution

TASK 15 - International Treaties

1. It seems appropriate to sometimes deviate from our usual logical progression to tackle issues that are currently under the public spotlight. We must confront them at some stage and tackling them when they are at the forefront of public debate makes a lot of sense.

2. The issue of international treaties is one that crops up with an ever-increasing frequency. I guess this is because ease of travel and the revolution in communication technology is making 'the world smaller'. Furthermore, the global increase in the population of human beings means that actions by people in one country more often impact on the lives of people in other countries. And, of course, there is the ever-increasing trade between nations.

3. The two world wars had such a far reaching impact that the people of the world were moved to create international bodies to help manage affairs that were beyond the scope of any one national government. Firstly the League of Nations and then the United Nations Organisation was created and there is no doubt that some good has come about as a result.

4. However, there is increasing concern that the UN (and other organisations created for the good of world trade and finances), are having an impact on the lives of ordinary citizens that is far in excess of what was originally intended.

5. There is little doubt that international rules are required to tackle issues such as pollution, global warming, etc. However, to be effective, rules and laws must be enforced. Enforcement can be achieved through the use of an enforcement agency such as a police force or by sanctions or we can rely on the good will of the participants. However, there is little doubt that no rules or laws will be effective unless there is monitoring by independent assessors and arbitration of disputes.

6. It will be seen from the above that any acceptance of international rules will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the citizens of every nation. The question then arises as to the level of international rules we are prepared to accept and the long-term prognosis. Can we envisage a time when there would be a 'world government'

regulating our lives? If this is an acceptable long-term goal, should we establish now a regime to monitor introduction? However, what ever level of international laws are to be accepted, we need to frame our constitution to protect Australian sovereignty and to ensure that acceptance and implementation of international treaties is in accord with the will of the People.

7. Current debate is about international treaties on an International Criminal Court (ICC), on an agreement regarding the opening up of the supply of government services to world businesses (WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and a range of issues regarding the handling of refugees and illegal immigrants. A perusal of almost any newspaper will reveal a range of views on these topics. An example of concerns arising out of international agreements is shown at Annex A to this paper.

8. Of most concern is GATS, the international treaty that would allow foreign businesses to quote for supplying government services in Australia. The rationale is that such an international agreement would allow Australian businesses to compete for similar business overseas. This treaty is seen by many as the most direct threat yet to the sovereignty of Australian citizens. An example of concern on this topic can be seen in Annex B to this paper.

9. There is little doubt that, if we are to trade with other countries, some rules designed to ensure a 'level playing field' could be desirable. However, it seems to many in the community that the agreements we have entered into in the past have not always served Australia's interest. For example, a World Trade Organisation treaty that allows America to successfully prosecute an action against a piddling Australian Government export incentive to Howe Leather on the one hand and yet allows America to pay massive subsidies to US farmers on the other hand, is not seen as creating a 'level playing field'.

10. It is of concern to many that international treaties undermine the authority of our elected government. Whenever the supply of any government services is taken over by private enterprise, the ability of the people to influence the outcomes through the ballot box is diminished. If multi-national businesses assume control of government services under an international treaty, this diminution of control over our lives is multiplied many-fold and is considered by many as a direct threat to our democracy.

11. It is not the purpose of this paper to debate the pros and cons of any particular treaty. Our task is to decide if there should be provision in the constitution to regulate the signing and ratification of international treaties and to decide what those provisions should be.

12. When our current Constitution was drafted, Australia was a series of Colonies and 'external affairs ' were handled by Britain. Consequently, this aspect of governance was regarded as being insignificant. This is evident in the wording of Section 51 (xxix), which is as follows:

S 51. The (National) Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:--

(xxix) External affairs.

Our Constitution does not allocate any power to the National Government to indulge in signing international treaties. However, the High Court has ruled in a number of cases and in particular on the case involving a dispute between the Commonwealth and Tasmania over the Franklin River dam, that the 'External Affairs' powers granted the National Parliament under Section 51 (xxix) can be used by the National Parliament as authority to sign international treaties no matter what the subject matter may be.

13. An international treaty only effects the law in Australia when the necessary legislation is passed. The High Court has ruled that the Commonwealth has power to legislate to implement treaties but that other matters on the subject remain the prerogative of the States. The inevitable conflicts that arise from this convoluted arrangement are handled by a 'Treaties Council' consisting of the Commonwealth and the States.

14. What we must do is decide if international treaties are desirable and, if so, what constitutional arrangements are necessary to properly manage the assessment, signing, ratification, implementation (and perhaps repudiation) of such treaties.

Task 15

International Treaties

15. The following questionnaire is designed to allow you to express your views on this issue. (Please note that there are usually three steps to the adoption of international treaties. These steps are:

a. 'Signing'. Signing an international treaty is an indication of intention to adopt.

b. 'Ratification'. 'Ratification' is the final acceptance and agreement to implement.

c. The third step is the passing of implementing legislation through the national parliament.)

Q1. Should Australia participate in International Treaties?

Q2. Do you envisage a time when 'one world government' will rule our lives?

Q3. Is the idea of 'one world government' acceptable to you?

Q4. Should negotiation of international treaties be the responsibility of State Governments?

Q5. Should negotiation and approval of international treaties be the responsibility of;

A5a. The National Government?
A6b. The National Parliament?

Q6. If negotiation and approval is to be by the Parliament, should approval be required by;

A6a. The House of Representatives?
A6b. Both the H of R and the Senate?
A6c. A joint sitting of both Houses?

Q7. Who should be authorised under the Constitution to sign an international treaty on behalf of the nation (after appropriate Parliamentary/Government approval);

A7a. The Head of State?
A7b. The Prime Minister?
A7c. The appropriate Minister (Foreign Affairs, Trade, Defence, etc.)?

Q8. Who should be authorised under the Constitution to ratify an international treaty (after appropriate Government/Parliamentary approval);

A8a. The Head of State?
A8b. The Prime Minister?
A8c. The appropriate Minister?

Q9. When should ratification of international treaties be the subject of a referendum;

A9a. Always?
A9b. Never?
A9c. Only if demanded by;

(i) The Head of State?
(ii) Parliament?
(iii) Citizens' Petition?

Q10. Should the information distributed for a referendum on ratification include information on the legislation expected to implement it?

Q11. Should our Constitution require our negotiators to include in every international treaty an 'escape clause' that would enable Australia to repudiate a treaty if unintended outcomes proved detrimental to Australia's national interest? (This may seem to be a reason not to ratify the treaty in the first place but it could be the case that being part of the international treaty could appear to be in Australia's best interest.) Furthermore, one could argue that the national parliament is passing laws every day that do not have such an 'escape clause'. While this is true, the fact remains that, if the People decide a national law is undesirable, they can vote a government that refuses to change it out of power. The People have no such power with international treaties and this represents a significant threat to our democracy.

Q 12. Should our Constitution require the inclusion of a 'sunset clause' in all international treaties to be signed by Australia? (A 'sunset clause' is a clause that limits the time a treaty would remain in effect. A further ratification would be required before the treaty would continue to be effective in Australia after that date).

Q 13. If you have any other views on this topic, please use the space below.

16. Your response by the end of July 2002 would be appreciated.

Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

The old news:

Compulsory labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients has been introduced in Australia because of public demand. However the new labelling requirements do not come in to force until December, 2002. Those who followed the labelling debate may remember the Prime Minister remarking that labelling may not be consistent with WTO rules. Our labeling requirements are relatively stringent by world standards. Now, read on.............

The new news:

AUSTRALIAN CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
NEWS MEDIA RELEASE 9/5/02

Australia sabotages own GM food labelling system

Australia has undermined its own GM labelling system at international negotiations, making our labelling laws potentially invalid under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the Australian Consumers' Association (ACA) was informed by representatives of the consumer movement overnight.

'Australia's delegation to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling has deliberately voted against our own domestic labelling regime in an international standards meeting in Halifax' said ACA's Food Policy Officer Rebecca Smith. 'This is outrageous behaviour.'

Australian Health Ministers have been explicit, and it is now law, that consumers have the right to labelling of genetically modified foods. There is no excuse for this sort of traitorous behaviour by Australian representatives.

'The international meeting is considering three alternatives for labelling. The weakest option, being pushed by the United States, would see labelling only foods considered to be a health hazard, for example a known allergen, or if there were a significant change in the nutrients of the food. Australian Health Ministers rejected this option and what business do Australia's bureaucrats have in votingfor it now?

'Not only is the fact of Australia's voting behaviour of concern, the US 'almost-never-label-GM option' would mean that exporting countries with less rigorous GM labelling requirements could challenge Australia's domestic rules as an unfair barrier to trade under WTO rules - forcing a watering down of domestic rules in turn.

'ACA is not surprised by this underhand play by the Australian Government. Trade and industry interests have been busy trying to undermine Australia's GM-labelling system since it was promised in 1999. We have seen extensions granted to industry by our Food Authority, to allow non-compliance with the national GM labelling standard until December 2002, and now this.

'These are reprehensible tactics by the Australian delegation, trying to sabotage truth in labelling for not only Australian consumers but consumers across the globe', stated Rebecca Smith.

For further information or interview request please contact Australian Consumers' Association (ACA's) Food Policy Officer, Rebecca Smith, on 02 9577 3373 or 0411 670 200
ACA

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

An individual's comment on May 2002 development (Gov't request for public comment).

GATS was signed by Australia in 1994 without any public knowledge or consultation and without parliamentary debate.

The Doha Ministerial Conference took place in October 2001, again without public knowledge or consultation. But be aware, Australia signed GATS in 1994 with a ten-year implementation period. The minister has been cornered into doing something in an effort to push back the rising tide of rejection that is about to engulf him and all the sitting politicians since 1994, over their blatant treachery involved in GATS.

GATS HAS RECEICED NO COVERAGE IN THE POPULAR MEDIA, NO PARLIAMENTARY, OR OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE OF ANY KIND. NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW ABOUT GATS.

BEING A PARTY TO GATS, AS AUSTRALIA IS, WILL RESULT IN MASSIVE CHANGES TO OUR LIVES IN AUSTRALIA.

GATS (not to be confused with GATT) is an INTERNATIONAL, WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services -- all services, including health, hospitals water supply, sewerage, environmental, construction, transport, prisons, telephone, social services, etc, etc.

GATS identifies 160 services, which includes just about every service except prostitution.

GATS is about putting all services out to worldwide tender. (The MAI revisited)

The lowest tender must be accepted, regardless of where it comes from.

The winning tender will be unrestricted and able to bring into Australia, to supply the services, its own workers at whatever rates of pay the successful tender wishes to pay.

GATS negotiations are set to be finalised in November 2002 and we the people have had no say in the agreement because we have not been advised about it.

We will be placed in the hands of international cartels supplying services through cheap labour countries.

This means that a USA, French, German, Russian cartels operating from India or Indonesia or some other country could be running our social security service and any number of other services in the near future, in fact running Australia, as a result of being the lowest tender.

The only jobs that will be available to Australians will be at rates of pay equal to those in the country from where the tender came. The end result is the international cartels - Money Power - will be making huge profits and the world’s people will be their slaves.

In preparation for this massive change, our governments of both political persuasions have been paving the way for international cartels by allowing them to gain control of our major service industries, water supply, communications, transport, hospitals, airports, electricity, railways, the lot.

Government will say, “Yes, we have signed the GATS but there is no compulsion. We do not have to do as it says”. The question then is, why sign it?

“Not compulsory” is the same lie used to fool us as the politicians imposed the conditions set out in the Lima Declaration 1976, when they agreed to abolish tariffs and to send our industry off shore. Our industry and our jobs have now gone.

We have all heard about the level playing field. Well get ready for it, it’s on our door step. GATS agreement conditions are already having an effect, which is about to increase. It will destroy jobs and our way of life completely unless we get off our rear-ends and stop it.