David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Will the Albanese Labor government be changing Australia's position in terms of how we describe Israeli settlements as being legal or not under international law? Will the Albanese Labor government also be changing Australia's position to formally recognise such territories as occupied Palestinian territories?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question, and I acknowledge his interest and expertise in national security and foreign affairs matters. What I would say to him is that this government is guided by the principle of advancing the cause of peace and progress towards a just and enduring two-state solution. It is clear that viewing the conflict from one perspective will not achieve such peace, and any lasting solution to the conflict cannot be at the expense of either Palestinians or Israelis. The conflict is a matter to be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

I've outlined our principle position, and what I would say to the senator is that we have taken steps consistent with these principles. We've reaffirmed Australia's previous longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue. We recognise that this is a deeply felt issue for many, and there are few issues more central to the Jewish people than the status of Jerusalem. We've rebalanced Australia's positions in international forums while opposing anti-Israel bias in the UN. We've called out unilateral actions that undermine the prospects of peace. We unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism and violence against civilians in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and have repeatedly called on both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take immediate steps to halt the violence.

We are gravely concerned about alarming trends that are significantly reducing the prospects of peace. We are deeply concerned by the Israeli government's settlement activity, including its advancements of thousands of settlement units and the retroactive legalisation of illegal outputs and policy changes. The Australian government is strengthening its opposition to settlements by affirming that they are illegal under international law and are a significant obstacle to peace. This is consistent with the positions of past governments and reflects legal advice and UN Security Council resolutions which determined that the settlements have no legal validity and constitute a violation of international law.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fawcett, first supplementary?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the media is reporting the things you have described and saying that the government will recognise certain territories as occupied Palestinian territory. Has the government determined precise boundaries for these territories, and, if so, how has such determination been anything other than, as the minister has previously said, a unilateral action which reduces the prospects of a just two-state solution?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is proposing to adopt or will be adopting or returning to the term 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'. The point I'd make to the senator is that that is consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions. It is consistent with the approach taken by key partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. This is a term which has been used on past occasions, by past foreign ministers and past governments, and is consistent with much of the nomenclature that is used within the UN context. And it is used, as I said, by key partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. In adopting the term, we are clarifying that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were occupied by Israel following the 1967 war and that the occupation continues. This reaffirms our commitment to a negotiated two-state solution in which Israel and the future Palestinian state coexist. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fawcett, second supplementary?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister has said, this is a sensitive topic in the community, internationally and within political parties, including the minister's own. Given the timing leading up to the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, could you detail for the Senate—in terms of numbers of meetings and correspondence, including email and face-to-face meetings—the extent of consultation with the Israeli government, Palestinian representatives and leaders within the Labor Party factional system?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the only matter that is properly within my portfolio is the engagement I've had with the ambassador and/or DFAT has had with the Israeli embassy. I will obtain those details. I can confirm there has been engagement with the ambassador, and that's because we do remain a committed friend of Israel—we do, and we recognise Israel's right to defend itself. We recognise the uniquely challenging security environment, and we continue to call out—this is not a partisan issue. Australia does continue to call out unfair and disproportionate targeting of Israel in international forums. We have opposed the referral of the conflict to the ICJ because we do not believe that will bring parties closer to negotiations. We do continue to fight anti-Semitism. It is a friendship that has been and should remain based on a shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and that is the approach we are taking.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.