Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne knows very well that he is not moving a motion today to recognise Palestine; he is moving a procedural motion about not dealing with the parliament's agenda. The member for Melbourne knows full well that procedural motions like this are always opposed. Why he would be deliberately setting up a vote on Palestinian recognition to fail is something only he can answer.

The Greens Party had an opportunity to select this motion for debate at an allocated time on Monday but chose not to; only the Greens leader can explain the reason. The foreign minister, Penny Wong, has made clear statements in the last month about the government's approach to Palestinian recognition. The Greens are trying to exploit the war for votes. Simplistic wedge motions in the House do nothing to advance the cause of peace. Wedge politics only divides the community. We gain nothing from the Greens seeking to reproduce this conflict in our own community.

If they were sincere the Greens would have something of substance to say about ending the cycle of violence and achieving lasting peace. Anyone who is serious about peace knows that that requires a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. But the Greens aren't serious. They prefer slogans to policy. A two-state solution requires working together and the recognition of each other. It requires a maturity the Greens do not have. They're just doing the same thing the Liberal Party is doing and playing politics over the war.

On the question of recognition, we have made clear we will be guided by whether recognition will advance the cause for peace. Like many countries, Australia has been frustrated by the lack of progress in this regard. Like Germany and the UK, staunch friends of Israel, Australia no longer sees recognition as only occurring at the end of the process; it could occur as part of a peace process and once there is progress on serious governance reforms and security concerns.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation. We see no role for them in this. A Palestinian state cannot be in a position to threaten Israel's security. We want to see a reformed Palestinian governing authority that is committed to peace, disavows violence and is ready to engage in a meaningful peace process. We want to see a commitment to peace in how the Palestinian Authority leads its people. The final status of core issues such as Jerusalem and the borders of a future Palestinian state should be defined through direct negotiations. The 19 April G7 statement noted that the recognition of a Palestinian state at an appropriate time would be a crucial component of that political process. The Greens and the opposition should stop picking fights and be a part of a discussion that the whole world is grappling with, which is how we advance lasting peace through a two-state solution.

Now, in contrast to those playing domestic political games in this chamber, the international community is taking a serious approach on this. The overwhelming majority of international community—some 143 countries, including Australia—voted for a resolution on this in the UN General Assembly recently. That motion retained the observer status of the Palestinian mission with the extension of some modest additional rights to participate in UN forums. It did not give the Palestinian mission membership at the UN or voting rights at the General Assembly, but, consistent with a two-state solution, it did express the General Assembly's aspiration for Palestinian membership in the UN, noting that this must ultimately be recommended by the Security Council, consistent with the UN charter. It did reaffirm the international community's unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security within recognised borders—something the Leader of the Greens was unable to do on the weekend. That resolution, in that respect, was a clear rejection of the goals and methods of Hamas. A two-state solution—Israel and Palestine—is the opposite of what Hamas wants. Hamas does not want peace. This rejection of Hamas was one of the reasons Australia voted for the resolution.

Like with many countries, this vote didn't represent bilateral recognition on Australia's part, but the international community is engaged seriously with this issue. Let's have a look at what our international partners—what other, like minded countries in the world—did with respect to this motion. Almost all of our region and many of our closest partners voted yes for this UN resolution, including our ally New Zealand; our special strategic partner Japan; our comprehensive strategic partners Indonesia, Singapore and the Republic of Korea; and every ASEAN nation. Like Australia, New Zealand voted yes. It considered a resolution a positive step on a pathway towards an eventual two-state solution. For Singapore, our close to close regional partner, their explanation of vote stated:

… Singapore's support for this resolution is a vote in favour of a negotiated two-state solution at a critical juncture in a very troubled region.

Japan, our strategic security partner, said:

… Japan also voted in favor of the General Assembly's resolution that grants Palestine additional rights as an Observer State on the understanding that these rights are not inconsistent with the framework of the UN Charter.

The United Kingdom has said:

Setting out a horizon for a Palestinian state should be one of the vital conditions for moving from a pause in the fighting to a sustainable ceasefire.

Lord Cameron has said they will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations, and has said that this 'could make the two-state solution irreversible'.

As I said, this didn't constitute bilateral recognition on Australia's part. We've said that we need to see a reformed Palestinian governing authority that's committed to peace, that disavows violence and that is ready to engage in a meaningful peace process. We want to see a commitment to peace in how the Palestinian Authority leads its people. We want to see a reformed Palestinian Authority capable of representing the entire occupied Palestinian territories. At the same time, Israel cannot continue to take unilateral action to entrench the occupation and to prevent a viable Palestinian state.

See this speech in context