What’s Labor’s REAL Plan?

International organisations can be granted immunity when operating in Australia against legal action resulting from good faith actions. This also includes protection of their records from inquiry. The Albanese Government has decided to extend this immunity to a wider range of international organisations, including those where Australia does not get a vote in how the organisation is run.

I asked the Minister what they were up to. The existing arrangements have worked fine for 30 years and I saw no reason to change them.

While the Minister’s reassurances were welcome, the point remains there is unlikely anything good going to come from this bill.

As a result, One Nation opposed the bill.

Transcript of Questions to the Minister

Senator Roberts: I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn’t get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public. Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what’s going on with this bill?

Senator McAllister: Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international
organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I’m advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included.

Senator Roberts: Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response?

Senator McAllister: This bill doesn’t change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records?

Senator McAllister: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it’s reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn’t change those at all. It doesn’t seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they’re liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply?

Senator McAllister: The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I’ve already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It’s not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate.

Senator Roberts: Following on from Senator Rennick ‘s questions, I’m specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation?

Senator McAllister: The World Health Organization is an entity that’s comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised.

Senator Roberts: [Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that’s happened with the United Nations World Health Organization?

Senator McAllister: I’m uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn’t affect the Australian government’s capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all.

Senator Roberts: It wouldn’t stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of ‘international organisation’, so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia’s operations?

Senator McAllister: As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions.

Senator Roberts: I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers.