Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, before I make my remarks, I would like to note that, as she knows, I deeply respect Senator O'Neill, and I respect the fact that she is one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel. But, on this occasion, I do disagree with fundamental points raised during her presentation to this chamber, although I recognise that they were made in good faith.

The reason I disagree with Senator O'Neill with respect to this point is that there are two limbs to the change in government policy as announced by Senator Wong in this chamber. The first limb is for the Australian government to adopt a policy that the settlements in these treaties are illegal under international law. I will speak to that in a moment. The second limb is to refer to those territories not just as 'occupied', as you referred to in your speech, Senator O'Neill, but as 'occupied Palestinian territories'. That's the second limb. That's important because the final status of both these issues—the legality of the settlements and where, under a two-state solution, some of these territories would be located—should and can only be the subject of a permanent negotiation between Israel and the relevant Palestinian counterparts. That is the only way this issue can be resolved: through a negotiation that permanently resolves these issues. It does not help the process for this government to give its opinion with respect to the legality of those settlements when the Oslo Accords and other agreements which have been made with respect to the peacemaking process recognised that these are issues which can only be permanently decided through a negotiated settlement. The final status of these issues can only be negotiated through a permanent settlement. It doesn't help that process. I recognise, Senator O'Neill, that you and I are on the same page. We want to see a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. We're absolutely on the same page. But the government's actions in the last week do not help that process.

In relation to the illegal settlement assertion, I say this to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: what consideration did the Australian government give, in coming to this decision on an extraordinarily complicated matter of international law, to the mandates and resolutions of the League of Nations following World War I? What consideration was given to the armistice boundaries following the war of 1948, after Israel's independence was declared? What consideration was given with respect to the de facto boundaries that were adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967? What consideration was given to the Jewish people's connection with some of these territories—some of their most holy sites? What sort of consideration was given to those issues? The answer is none.

What was considered was the Labor Party's national conference this forthcoming weekend. The timing of this decision betrays that. That's what was considered, not this extraordinarily complicated matter of international law, which has an overlay of very real-world issues for the people of Israel with respect to their safety and wellbeing. Nothing was considered in that regard. What was considered was the forthcoming national conference of the Labor Party—the worst possible background to make such a sensitive foreign policy decision.

I come back to that second limb. Commentators have expressed views on this. The wording adopted by the Labor Party in referring to occupied Palestinian territories presupposes the outcome of a negotiated settlement process. That is totally inappropriate. This matter will not be resolved by international parties seeking to unilaterally impose their views on the parties most affected—namely the people of Israel and also the Palestinian representatives. That will not resolve this issue. It must be a negotiated settlement which ultimately will, hopefully, achieve peace in the Middle East.