Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:09:56 to 1:15:56
Discussion on whether the FTA makes the Paris Agreement binding with real enforcement consequences.
Topics: Climate change, International law, Trade policy
Speakers: Senator Matthew Canavan, Speaker 4, George Mina, Senator Raff Ciccone, Unknown Speaker, Interjection
>> So under this provision well first of all this seems to refer back to a dispute resolution process is that right 574 of the framework agreement.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. um under the dispute resolution process in the framework agreement is and is is a ruling of an independent panel required before action is taken
>> as I said the um the mechanisms under the framework agreement are not as um comprehensive so it's uh in cases of urgency it's referral to the um committee joint committee structures under the framework agreement um and then potenti potentially to um ministerial consideration. There's not a tribunal or panel established but I
>> so as you mentioned earlier the framework agreement seems to deal with issues of human rights. Uh I think what was the other thing some weapons of mass um so I can understand urgency in those cases and perhaps the need to to obiate uh an independent panel process. Why then is anything that materially defeats the object and purpose of the Paris agreement put on that same level as human rights or breaches or issues around weapons of mass destruction?
>> This I hesitate to provide more specific legal advice into relation to the framework agreement because it's not a trade agreement and I'm the chief trade law officer.
>> But this is something I'm referring to what's in the trade agreement. Yes. >> I I'm just like the evidence that I'm hearing on the other side of the table. Oh, don't worry about it, Matt. You know, we can do whatever we like under the Paris agreement. Yet time and time again. Hang. Oh, >> Finish. Yep. So, so the evidence I'm hearing is don't worry about it. It's fine. We can do whatever we like under the Paris agreement. Yet we have a provision here in this trade agreement which gives the EU the right to take action uh in a in a fairly seemingly um uh uh urgent manner uh without the need to go through independent panel processes to resolve a dispute uh equivalent to what they could do regarding human rights and weapons of mass destruction for anything that defeats the object and purpose of the Paris agreement. It doesn't seem consistent that that that provision does not seem consistent with your overall conclusion that this deal would not impose significant constraints on how we uh uh uh uh handle our commitments under the Paris agreement.
>> I would make a few uh points. So article 574 then rec the parties recognize that in such a case as special urgency may serve as a ground for taking appropriate measures outside this agreement i.e. the framework agreement in accordance with the rights and obligation of the parties under other agreements between the parties or under general international law. That then means you turn back to the provisions of the free trade agreement. And I don't think we well my evidence is certainly not that there's absolutely no relevance or commitment. The commitment is to not to refrain from actions that materially defeat the object and purpose of the Paris agreement. And on that basis, the EU could potentially as the state take a dispute. And if that was established that whatever action the Australian government had taken did do that then through a panel process there would then be potentially scope to um impose retaliation which would have to be proportionate to the breach and also as Misdemeanor said at the takes you back to the position before the FDA. So it's contained the FDA. So no one's saying there is no consequences. We are saying they are contained to the FDA. It requires that high bar and it does not uh impose it doesn't require us to um we are able to change our um nationally determined contribution. So I think it's it's it's clear how it works. Well,
well, I think you've just laid out clear that yes, the objects and purposes of the Paris agreement are now going to be binding on us in a way they weren't previously because they they clearly not binding under the Paris agreement uh are proper, but now there will be there will be serious real consequences if we act in a way which materially defeats the objects and purpose of Paris agreement which there weren't before. That is clear. Thank you,
>> Senator. We do we do have to reject that proposition again. This is not fundamentally >> different to the position uh we have at the moment. We are bound to the Paris
>> Are we are we do we face >> currently before you can't answer these questions when I ask them so I don't >> if I ask
>> we are bound currently and we will be bound after the FDA. Uh so that is not a fundamental difference under the Paris agree. There are, as M. Holmes has just explained, yes, there are. We're one to uh meet this very high bar. Yes, there are enforcement consequences and they are limited to the FD.
>> Under the Paris agreement, do we face real consequences uh for doing something which materially defeats the objects and purposes of that agreement?
>> Well, Senator, this is the counterfactual. We at the moment have no economic benefits from this [clears throat] FTA. >> Okay. and uh we we we also >> uh don't face that enforcement risk of losing those economic benefits. Look, we've established contained to the FDA. a way. It's really important that
to me. Now,
>> we're moving the call around and trying to ask the witnesses all to have their name tags on the table, please.
>> I think so.
>> Name tag. You got your name tag?
>> Oh, sorry.
>> Yeah. Thanks. Uh, Senator Darling,