Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I begin by recognising the presence of the Palestinian ambassador and other ambassadors here in the gallery this evening.

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. If there is one word to describe the deliberate actions of Senator Brandis, Ms Bishop and the Abbott government on this issue, and to be quite frank on most issues, that word would be perverse. Perverse can be defined in two ways: to show a deliberate and stubborn desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable; or, to be contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice. It is my view that both definitions apply to Senator Brandis, Ms Bishop and the Abbott government.

On 5 June 2014, Senator Brandis made a prepared statement to a Senate estimates committee explaining his comments from the night before—this time, though, with the foreign affairs minister's authority. I quote Senator Brandis's key sentence:

The description of East Jerusalem as 'occupied' East Jerusalem is a term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate nor useful.

This government displayed a deliberate and stubborn desire to promote its opinions on the terminology and legality of the occupied territories.

The clear response from the international community was that this opinion was both unreasonable and unacceptable. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation's Council of Foreign Ministers strongly condemned the Australian government for refusing to refer to East Jerusalem as occupied. The council, which met late last week in Saudi Arabia, blasted 'the orientation of the Australian government not to describe the city as occupied'. The council called on the Australian government to 'respect its commitments under international law', and urged member states 'to condemn such illegal positions and take necessary measures to respond to them'.

The council left open the possibility of a boycott on Australia's multi-billion-dollar trade to the Middle East. On 19 June 2014, the foreign minister met with a large delegation of ambassadors concerned by the apparent change in terminology and policy of the Australian government. The foreign minister's statement after the meeting read:

At this meeting I provided a letter re-affirming that there has been no change in the Australian Government’s position on the legal status of the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem.

Our position is consistent with relevant UN resolutions adopted over many years, including UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

UNSC resolution 242 directly refers to occupied territories. If this government is in agreement with the international community on this issue, as the foreign minister claims, it should also be in agreement with the international community on the terminology used, which is that it is entirely appropriate—not pejorative or tendentious, as Senator Brandis said during Senate estimates—to refer to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as occupied territories.

I think it is clear that the Abbott government fulfils the first definition of perverse. This government was also clearly acting in a manner contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice. I refer the Senate to House of Representatives Hansard on 5 February 2013. On this day, then shadow minister for foreign affairs and trade, Ms Bishop, did something completely out of character. During question time in the House of Representatives, she asked a question about foreign affairs. The problem with the question was that she did not ask it of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. She chose to ask the newly appointed Attorney-General. Her motives are hers to explain. Her question was:

… does the Attorney-General agree with the foreign minister that the settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law?

The question was ruled out of order in that the then Attorney-General did not represent the then foreign affairs minister in the House of Representatives. First and foremost I would like to acknowledge that directly questioning the Attorney-General on this matter is not common practice and is an example of how the coalition do not appear to take matters of foreign policy very seriously. Furthermore, it is the height of hypocrisy for Ms Bishop to have found it acceptable to ask such questions while in opposition, but within months of her ascension to the role of Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, she said:

I would like to see which international law has declared them illegal.

I wonder what answer Ms Bishop had hoped to get from her question of the then Attorney-General. Did Ms Bishop want the then Attorney-General to confirm the then foreign affairs minister's position, or was Ms Bishop misusing the standing orders to seek to create a wedge between senior ministers of the previous government? Hansard records that Ms Bishop's question of 5 February was her first on this topic in the 43rd Parliament. A week later, on 12 February 2013, Ms Bishop lodged two questions on notice, one to the then Attorney-General, and one to the then Minister for Trade in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The question to the then Attorney-General read:

Can he indicate whether the former Attorney-General (or his department) received a request prior to 18 January 2013 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (or his department) for advice on the legal status of Israeli settlement on the West Bank; if so, did the then Attorney-General advise that all settlements are illegal under international law, as stated in the AUKMIN2013 Communique.

The then Attorney-General's response was simply:

Neither the Attorney-General nor the Attorney-General's Department have received a request from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (or his department) to provide advice on the legal status of Israeli settlement on the West Bank.

The first question from Ms Bishop to the then Minister for Trade read:

Prior to 18 January 2013, did the Minister seek advice from the International Law Office within the Attorney-General's Department on the legal status of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

To which the then Minister for Trade responded:

No. Consistent with the Legal Services Directions 2005 (Cth), the Minister for Foreign Affairs sought legal advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The second question from Ms Bishop to the then Minister for Trade read:

What legal advice is the basis for the statement made in the AUKMIN2013 Communique, that 'All settlements are illegal under international law …'

To which the then Minister for Trade responded:

It is the widely held view of the international community that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories contravene international law. This is reflected in, for example, the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall on Occupied Palestinian Territories and resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.

The final question from Ms Bishop to the then Minister for Trade read:

Did the Minister give the United States prior notification of the intention to include in the Communique, a call on its government to take a more active role in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process; if so, how much notice was provided.

To which the then Minister for Trade responded:

Yes. The Minister's Office advised the US Embassy on 18 January 2013.

Given the written answer to the second question on notice that Ms Bishop received from the then Minister for Trade, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs—