Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in his second reading speech introducing this debate called these Greater Sunrise bills a ‘matter of formality’. He also spoke of ‘Timor leased’. With all the connotations that implies—Timor, our tenant indeed!—I hope he uses the correct pronunciation when he sums up this legislation. Regardless of this government’s ability to correctly draft legislation, our refusal to delineate Australia’s maritime boundaries with Timor-Leste under accepted international conventions—in order to exploit the one major natural resource available to this poorest of the poor nations—is never a matter of formality for me and for many Australians. That this debate has been moved to the Main Committee, the chamber for the debate of non-contentious bills, is indicative perhaps of the government’s wish that the less public attention brought to the so-called agreement the better.

One major aspect of this bill that makes it far from the informality the government wishes it was is the fact that the incorporation into the Offshore Petroleum Act of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement—an agreement which was much debated in 2004 but not ratified by the Timor-Leste government—was essentially superseded last week with the exchange of notes on the treaty on certain maritime arrangements in the Timor Sea, referred to as CMATS. That CMATS was ratified last week means that this debate is no longer solely about the unitisation agreement as stipulated by the parliamentary secretary, but more about this newly minted treaty—a treaty that delivers East Timor a better outcome than the shameful original unitisation agreement but leaves the new nation with just half its rightful claim to the resources of the Timor Sea.

The government and opposition should be ashamed of the process that took place in 2004 which saw the unitisation legislation rammed through the House in a matter of hours. There was no announcement prior to it being introduced in the House, from memory, and it was debated in haste the morning after a function in this place, with Woodside and other proponents of the deal entertaining the various members of both sides of the House—I must say, with my exception. This debate occurred, to the deep dismay of our Timor-Leste neighbours, in 2004. It was all about revenue and jobs for Australia, including Darwin and elsewhere, and revenue for Australian shareholders; it was not about jobs and infrastructure that are so desperately required for Timor-Leste. This latest deal is better, but it still represents an exploitation of resources that rightfully belong to Timor-Leste.

CMATS sets out the revenue-sharing arrangements for the Greater Sunrise oil and gas fields. It locks these in by putting a moratorium on any further negotiation of the maritime boundaries between the two countries for 50 years beyond the expected 30-year life of the Greater Sunrise project. This kills off any opportunity for Timor-Leste and the UN to show that under internationally agreed conventions regarding maritime boundaries, Greater Sunrise and other fields lie wholly within the territory of Timor-Leste. If the government believes this will not be the case and that Australia has a legitimate claim to a maritime boundary that incorporates oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, it should not be afraid to have this claim tested under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the International Court of Justice.

Australia’s 2002 withdrawal from these processes belies the government’s whole approach to this issue. It is not convinced of the legitimacy of our claims to the oil and gas reserves of the Timor Sea, especially in that half of the gap closest to Timor-Leste. The sharing arrangements under CMATS reflect some of the unitisation agreement that was often used to illustrate Australia’s generosity to its less developed neighbour. As set out in the national interest analysis document in relation to CMATS tabled in this parliament on 6 February this year, the sharing of revenues recognises that 20.1 per cent of Greater Sunrise lies within the area of shared responsibility between Timor-Leste and Australia—the Joint Petroleum Development Area or JPDA—and that 79.1 per cent lies in Australian territory south of the 1972 Australia-Indonesia seabed treaty and east of the JPDA.

Timor-Leste receives 90 per cent of revenues from the JPDA. This is the figure we hear most often from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This is equal to 18.1 per cent of the total revenue to government available from Greater Sunrise as a whole. The CMATS improves the IUA in that total ‘upstream government revenues’ will be divided fifty-fifty, such that, whatever dollar amount Timor-Leste receives per quarter for its 18 per cent, Australia will pay from its share whatever amount is necessary to equalise this income at 50 per cent each. But it should always be remembered that this deal is only half of what East Timor would be morally entitled to if its maritime borders were properly drawn.

The government may argue that the sharing of revenues under the CMATS means Timor-Leste will begin to receive much needed funds sooner than if the exploitation of the oil and gas fields were delayed for many more years in negotiation under the UN process. It is well within our capacity to allow revenues from the Bayu-Undan field, which lies wholly within the JPDA, to flow whilst the maritime border is properly demarcated, leaving the contentious fields such as Greater Sunrise, Laminaria-Corallina and Buffalo until such a time. As it stands, CMATS also protects our ongoing exploitation of revenues from the Laminaria-Corallina and Buffalo fields, which would also be in Timorese territory under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. What hypocrisy it is for this government to celebrate its generosity to the East Timorese under this treaty.

I met yesterday with Fernando Lasama de Araujo, President of Partido Democratico and a candidate for President of Timor-Leste later this year. He said his new party will continue to seek justice on its sea border and, like most of his countrymen, he is angry at the failure of the petroleum industry to deliver any real employment and infrastructure to Timor-Leste, where unemployment is rampant, political and social unrest is critical, a manipulative few are feathering their own nests, and there is precious little infrastructure, beyond wasteful Taj Mahals like the new foreign affairs building in Dili, to stroke the ego of several prominent people, it seems.

Political and social priorities seem to be sadly askew in East Timor and this economic rip-off adds to the cynicism among the poor. Do we really believe we have the trust of the people of Timor-Leste? Do the people of Timor-Leste really regard this deal as generous, as the member for Solomon just told us? It is the right of two nations to negotiate binding arrangements with regard to their borders, regardless of international conventions, but the government has extracted 50 per cent more of what Australia would be entitled to if the maritime boundaries were properly demarcated in line with international conventions. In the debate on the unitisation agreement, in that hastily-rammed-through bill back in 2004, I said:

The one thing that I am happy with in this whole process is that this agreement and the Timor Sea Treaty will not prejudice the delimitation of a maritime border between the two countries, but the oil could well have run out before we get to that point.

This is no longer the case with CMATS. Both countries are locked in to this sharing arrangement until the oil and gas are exhausted. With this treaty and this bill, we have pushed a poor developing nation—the world’s youngest democracy—into giving up half of its rightful claim to revenue from the natural resources that will ensure its future development for decades to come. Indeed, it is not too long a bow to draw to say that the deal that has been struck is instrumental in fomenting the current situation in Timor-Leste—the feeling of mistrust and of having been let down, and the feeling that they are being overlorded by a new colonial master in this whole process.

I can sheet home the blame for much of the unrest in Timor to the feeling of complete abandonment felt by many of the people of Timor-Leste. I hope that, in the elections to come, they can be properly represented in parliament. I learnt only this week that their parliament has proportional representation, which is fine, but the members of parliament are delivered by the party winning that share of the vote and are not truly representative of the people of the hamlets and those impoverished areas of Timor-Leste that are crying out for a true democracy in their country.

There is a system in place that delivers power to only those, it seems, who have a position that they have obtained through various means over the years. There seems to be scant regard generally for the democratic instincts and the fortunes of the Timorese people. That could be addressed with a proper parliamentary process and proper representation. I hope that the democratic party is one that will deliver fairer representation, if indeed it achieves its hoped-for 35 per cent of the vote at the elections. I hope any other parliamentary party in Timor-Leste develops processes that deliver true democratic outcomes, because without that there is going to be a continuation of the unrest, the bitterness and the sectional feuding that we see at the moment. We see people living in fear in refugee camps within their own fledgling democracy. The leadership there seems to have failed them.

Let us not be too precious about this when we try and analyse what is happening over there. I truly believe that the short-changing of the people of Timor-Leste by this Timor oil process is very much part of their feeling of disillusionment about their rightful place in the world, their right to their resources and their right to build a strong and vibrant democracy—one that is based on a fair capitalist process that enables them to build on their natural capital and to make a country with the resources, the skills and the unified population that it could if given a fair chance. One cannot deny Timor-Leste the vital revenue it will receive via this legislation, but it is a deal brokered with Timor-Leste literally over a barrel.

See this speech in context