As a matter of international law, has Australia’s position changed with the vote in favour of the general resolution such that Australia does now recognise the State of Palestine?
Senator SCARR: I’d like to ask some further questions in relation to the UN resolution and the document that was submitted to the International Criminal Court in 2020. I note that the UN resolution—hopefully, you’ve still got the copy there—in numerous places, including in the recitals, refers to ‘the State of Palestine’. For example, the recital I referred to before refers to ‘stressing its conviction that the State of Palestine is fully qualified for membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the charter’. Then, in the operative provisions, clause 1 determines that the State of Palestine is qualified for membership. Indeed, the annexe to the resolution also refers to ‘the additional rights and privileges of participation of the State of Palestine’. Australia supported this resolution. I then go back to the other document that I tabled, which was the submission to the International Criminal Court. If I go to a subsequent section—I haven’t referred to this section before—the conclusion states quite definitively in paragraph 29 that ‘Australia does not recognise a state of Palestine’. Given that Australia has now voted in favour of the UN general resolution which repeatedly refers to ‘a state of Palestine’, has Australia changed its position such that it now recognises a state of Palestine?
Ms Jones : I’d refer those questions to DFAT.
Senator SCARR: I’ll put the question in another way, and I need to get this on the Hansard record because these questions no doubt will be asked of DFAT, and departments do on occasion refer things back to the other department, as you would know, Secretary. So it is important—despite the mirth of some—that I do actually get it on the record. I’ll put the question another way. As a matter of international law, has Australia’s position changed with the vote in favour of the general resolution such that Australia does now recognise the State of Palestine?
Ms Jones : Given we weren’t engaged on this, I don’t think we’re in a position to provide an answer on that.
Senator SCARR: Can you take it on notice?
Ms Jones : Yes, we can take it on notice.
Senator SCARR: Thank you. Minister, I want to put the same question to you as a matter of government policy. You’ve heard the preamble. Given that Australia has now voted in favour of the resolution which in numerous places refers to ‘the State of Palestine’, has Australia’s position changed from that contained in the submission to the International Criminal Court which stated that Australia does not recognise the State of Palestine?
Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of the Criminal Court document—I don’t have a copy of it.
Senator SCARR: I think one of the witnesses at the table can, potentially, give you a copy of it.
CHAIR: It’s from 2020. It goes without saying, Senator Scarr, that the minister at the table is the Minister representing the Attorney-General, not the minister representing the foreign minister. She’ll be here next week, if you want to ask her these questions.
Senator SCARR: I’d probably get through the questions more quickly without the comments from the chair, so I’m quite happy—
CHAIR: It’s not comments; it’s chairing.
Senator SCARR: I’m quite happy for the minister to simply answer the question for the record.
Senator Chisholm: What was the question?
Senator SCARR: The question is: given that Australia voted in favour of the resolution put to the General Assembly of the United Nations which in the recitals refers to the existence of ‘the State of Palestine’ and in the operative clauses refers to ‘the State of Palestine’, has Australia’s position changed from that contained in the 2020 document which says that Australia does not recognise the State of Palestine?
Senator Chisholm: You’d be better off putting that to the foreign minister next week, Senator Scarr.
Senator SCARR: Okay. I’ll move onto the next set of questions, in relation to the warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. Is that something which can be dealt with in this section?
Mr Newnham : Yes.
Senator SCARR: Or is it under national security?
Mr Newnham : It depends a little on the nature of the questions.
Senator SCARR: I was going to ask you questions in relation to Australia’s obligations under the relevant treaties in the event that the International Criminal Court does issue a warrant.
Ms Jones : I think that is the international crime cooperation area, but is there anything with which you may be able to assist?
Ms Sheehan : It might depend on the nature of the question—if it goes to our domestic law processes or international law, noting we’re not going to be able to provide international law advice.
Senator SCARR: No, but I did closely follow your helpful answers to the questions which Senator Thorpe put in the previous block, and I admire the fact that you provided as much assistance as you could. Again, I’m not telling you how to answer the question; I’ll simply put the question. In the event that the International Criminal Court does issue an arrest warrant, what is Australia’s obligation to actually execute that arrest warrant?
Ms Jones : That does go to issues that Ms Chidgey and Ms Inverarity are responsible for, but we’re happy to take that on notice.