Back to All News

Estimates: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee: Defence Portfolio: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Estimates & Committees
Lee Rhiannon 13 Jun 2018

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Azerbaijan Armenia & Palestine

Senator RHIANNON: I want to start with some questions related to issues to do with Azerbaijan and the Armenian issue. Minister Fierravanti-Wells indicated that Australia was, and I am quoting one of the minister's speeches from your website:

… a forthright supporter of Azerbaijan's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and strongly supports Azerbaijan's position on—and I apologise for my pronunciation—Nagorno-Karabakh.

Was this consistent with all the core principles of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe Minsk process, which I understand that Australia has indicated it supports?

Ms Raper : The government's longstanding policy is that Australia supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and does not recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state. As you note, we're supporters of the OSCE Minsk Group. We do not seek to intervene in the dispute.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. In April this year, federal member for Hughes Mr Craig Kelly and a delegation of four other MPs visited Azerbaijan to monitor the election, where Ilham Aliyev was re-elected for a seven-year term with an 85 per cent overall vote. Does the government stand by the comments of Mr Kelly when he described the elections as democratic? I am asking this question because I noted at the time the elections were widely criticised by international observers, including the OSCE—I understand that Australia is a partner in the OSCE—for the failure in that election to follow basic democratic processes.

Ms Raper : I am sorry, Senator, but what election are you referring to?

Senator RHIANNON: The election earlier this year, where Mr Ilham Aliyev, the leader, was re-elected for a seven-year term.

Ms Raper : I don't have any information on that. I will have to come back to you.

Senator RHIANNON: If you could take that on notice, thank you. I understand that DFAT has indicated its awareness of the investigation carried out by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project into the money scandal known as the Azeri laundromat. Are you in a position to comment on that if I want to ask a question about it?

Ms Raper : Why don't you ask your question and I'll see if I can find the relevant material.

Senator RHIANNON: Is the government aware of the investigations that link these funds that were being investigated by OCCRP to European politicians and political organisations in order to strengthen the profile of Azerbaijan abroad and cover up human rights abuses in that country?

Ms Raper : I think I will have to refer you to my initial comments on what our policy is to support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I can't comment in particular on that question that you've asked.

Senator RHIANNON: Could you take it on notice, because it was specifically about funds? I have another one that you will probably need to take on notice. If you have any information, it would be useful to share it with the hearing. Was any of this money, which is being referred to as the Azeri laundromat scandal, been laundered through Australia? It has been reported that some has been laundered through New Zealand.

Ms Raper : I'm going to have to take that on notice.

[Ms Raper: This is just to answer questions that Senator Rhiannon raised earlier. She asked about the election in Azerbaijan in April, and she asked if we were aware of the OSCE's views. I can confirm that DFAT is aware of the OSCE's views on the conduct of the election of Mr Aliyev as President of Azerbaijan in April 2018. We had also seen the public comments from Mr Kelly on the election. We note that he observed the election in his private capacity, along with a number of other Australian parliamentarians, and his comments do not necessarily reflect government policy. The Australian government has not taken a position on the conduct of the election but, consistent with standard diplomatic practice, congratulated Mr Aliyev on his re-election. Senator Rhiannon also asked about the Azerbaijan laundromat, including possible links to Australia. DFAT is aware of reporting from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project on what is described as the Azerbaijan laundromat. However, we're not aware of such money being transferred to Australia. In line with our usual practice, if we were given any information pertaining to potential extraterritorial crimes, we would refer the information to the Australian Federal Police. p. 110]

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. I will move on to some questions about Palestine. I am just following up on some of the issues that Senator Richard Di Natale asked earlier. Can you confirm that, given Australia's policy that we should not prejudice the status of Jerusalem, Australian officials will not attend meetings in the new US embassy in Jerusalem?

Ms Yu : I can't confirm that Australian officials will not attend the US embassy. Some of the roles of the post representation is that we actually work with other posts.

Ms Adamson : We have made our decision in relation to our own intentions very clear. We will need to continue normal cooperation and diplomatic discourse with our US colleagues.

Senator RHIANNON: But isn't it a fair summary of Australia's position that nothing should happen that would prejudice the status of Jerusalem?

Ms Adamson : I don't believe that Australian officials holding meetings with US officials in their embassy would prejudice the final status negotiations.

Senator RHIANNON: Why do you say that, considering the extraordinary controversy that there is around this? We are actually talking about the status in Jerusalem.

Ms Adamson : We are. The government made its position clear on that when President Trump announced that intention. We've also made clear our own intentions with respect to our own embassy, which is for it to stay where it is. So our position is clear, but we will need to, in a pragmatic way, continue to work with the Americans as we do throughout the world and, indeed, with other close partners.

Senator RHIANNON: So when you say pragmatic, do you mean that you take it on a case-by-case basis depending on who is attending the meeting, where it's going to be held and that sort of thing? Is that what pragmatic means in this case?

Ms Adamson : It means that we will need to continue to do business with the Americans. I would be comfortable leaving judgements on those matters to my colleagues in our embassy in Tel Aviv. Should they encounter a situation where they feel they want to seek instructions, I have no doubt that they will do that.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you.

Senator FAWCETT: Can you confirm that members of parliament, ministers and our ambassador at times visit the Israeli parliament, the Knesset?

Ms Adamson : Yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Where is the Knesset located?

Ms Adamson : I'm sure you have visited the Knesset yourself, Senator. I haven't, but I'm sure you know the answer to that question.

Senator FAWCETT: Would you mind putting it on the record?

Ms Adamson : Well, the Knesset is in Jerusalem.

Senator FAWCETT: So the location of their parliament is in Jerusalem.

Ms Adamson : It's not that we've got any difficulty at all—

Senator FAWCETT: Correct. Thank you.

Ms Adamson : in dealing with them, and nor would we with the new US embassy and its personnel.

Senator FAWCETT: So most of the forms of their government—their Knesset, their Supreme Court—

Ms Adamson : Absolutely.

Senator FAWCETT: Their ministries?

Ms Adamson : And our colleagues travel very regularly to Jerusalem for those kinds of meetings.

Senator FAWCETT: Yes. Because that's where their government is.

Ms Adamson : Exactly.

Ms Yu : And it's in West Jerusalem, I understand.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Ms Adamson, do you know of any legal code that would not count the shooting of unarmed civilians as a war crime?

Ms Adamson : I'm going to ask our chief legal officer to answer that question because there are nuances to the answer.

Senator RHIANNON: Yes.

Mr Larsen : Forgive me. I think your question contains a double negative. Could I hear it again?

Senator RHIANNON: Do you know of any legal code that would not count the shooting of unarmed civilians as a war crime? It's not actually a double negative.

Mr Larsen : Well, every circumstance where a person faces fire will depend on the specific circumstances. So it will always be treated on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, it may be a crime. In other instances, it may not.

Senator RHIANNON: So when would it not be a crime to shoot unarmed civilians?

Mr Larsen : I think it depends on the circumstances. I can't answer a hypothetical. It will ultimately depend on all the circumstances and the facts at the time.

Senator RHIANNON: Do you know of any legal code that would not count the shooting of unarmed civilians walking towards a fence when they are many hundreds of metres away from the person with the guns as a war crime?

Mr Larsen : I can't engage in a hypothetical assessment.

Senator RHIANNON: It's not a hypothetical. It's just what has happened in Gaza. It's not a hypothetical.

CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon, I seek a point of clarification. I think you are asking an Australian DFAT legal officer a question. It would be quite appropriate, I think, to ask questions of Australian law. I'm not sure he is the appropriate person to ask about the laws of other nations.

Senator RHIANNON: I don't think you need to protect him. I think it's a very legitimate question concerning the circumstances. This is DFAT. We have representatives there. These incidents occur. They need to be explored. I will ask the question again. Do you know of any legal code that would not count the shooting of unarmed civilians walking towards a fence many hundreds of metres away from the people with the guns as a war crime?

Mr Larsen : It absolutely depends on the particular circumstances. It would be a case-by-case assessment. It would depend on an assessment of the perception of the forces on the other side of the fence or border. It would depend on the nature of the approach. So there are many factors to consider.

Senator RHIANNON: In March this year, it was reported in the Israeli media that Israeli border police were deploying newly developed drones that can drop tear gas canisters against Palestinian demonstrators. The drones can carry up to six canisters at a time. They can drop them individually, in clusters or all at the same time. Developers, I understand, are working to increase the capacity to 12 canisters. What is the government's response to using drones to drop tear gas canisters on people?

Mr Larsen : I might answer that from a legal perspective, but obviously colleagues at the desk will have a more nuanced and sophisticated view. At the end of the day, it's always a question of a case-by-case analysis of the particular circumstances, so it depends on the particular threat. It depends on the particular events. It depends on the intention of both sides.

Senator RHIANNON: But isn't the question here that both sides are not equal sides? This is the case, and this is another example of it. That's not the question, but I think that's fair enough to comment on the context here. Given currently tear gas canisters shot from the canons have maimed people—that's on the record—does the government have any concerns that canisters dropped from the sky with the accuracy that drones can deliver has even greater potential to seriously harm people?

Mr Larsen : We recognise the right of Israel to defend itself, to take reasonable and proportionate action in response to threats. I can't comment on the particular hypothetical you've put to me. Ultimately, any legal analysis or measuring conduct against a code or legal standard will depend on the particular circumstances.

Senator RHIANNON: You've used the word 'proportionate', which is regularly used when there are these discussions. There's such a huge gulf here, considering that we had snipers on one side and on the other side there's protesters in Kissufim, where there were reports of Molotov cocktails and there were reports of kites flying over. There were also tens of thousands of people who were engaged in peaceful action. When you use the word 'proportionate', what do you actually mean by that considering there were snipers on one side who killed well over 100 people?

Mr Larsen : It absolutely depends on the particular circumstances. It depends on the perception of each side as to the conduct of the other. It depends on the facts on the ground. It is quite possible that action can be lawful even where you have civilian casualties.

Senator RHIANNON: So is it proportionate where there were no deaths on Israel's side but there are well over 100 deaths on the Gazan side as well as over 2,000 people injured? Is that a proportionate response?

Mr Larsen : In my opinion, the question of proportionality doesn't give rise to a debate about the number of deaths on one side or the other. That's not relevant to proportionality.

CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon, I remind you of a point of order that Senator Moore raised about using the word 'alleged'. With Senator Leyonhjelm it was important. Senator Leyonhjelm took the point that these are allegations. You are now referring in the same way that Senator Leyonhjelm was.

Senator RHIANNON: Well, I actually don't agree with that, Chair. Nothing that I have said is an allegation. It has been reported widely and it hasn't been disputed with regard to the figures that I gave or what happened. Has the Australian government made any response or indicated any concerns to the Israeli government about the use of drones as described?

Ms Yu : Not drones as such specifically. As you would know, our foreign minister, on 15 May, issued a press statement expressing her deep regret and sadness over the loss of life. As Mr Larsen commented just then, while we recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns and needs to protect its population, we call on Israel to be proportionate in its response and refrain from the excessive use of force. Senator Di Natale asked how many times we actually made representations to the Israeli government about this issue. I can provide that information for you. There have been five occasions where we made representation to the Israeli government expressing our concerns around what was happening in the Gaza Strip.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you for making that available. Israel's border police deputy commissioner, Yaakov Shabtai, was quoted in the Times of Israelas saying, and I quote him:

Beyond the fact that this equipment neutralizes any danger to the troops, it enables reaching places that until now we couldn't get to.

I emphasise the words 'it enables reaching places that until now we couldn't get to'. Is the Australian government concerned the Palestinians may now be targeted by the Australians anywhere within flight distance?

Ms Yu : We'll have to look further into that.

Senator RHIANNON: And if that's a proportionate response.

Mr Larsen : I might add to that. Ultimately, I think it's a question of facts and the particular circumstances that the Israeli forces face. Any assessment of the reasonableness or otherwise or the proportionality or otherwise will always be a question of considering the relevant facts at the particular time.

Senator RHIANNON: Surely we can ask the question now. Part of the relevant facts is whether this will mean that Palestinians going about their daily business will be the targets of these drones, because that's now possible?

Mr Larsen : Senator, that is a hypothetical question.

Senator RHIANNON: It's not hypothetical. It's the border police deputy commissioner saying it. He said, 'It enables reaching places that until now we couldn't get to.' It's not hypothetical.

Mr Larsen : The answer to the question that I would posit is that ultimately we respect Israel's right to act in self-defence. The actions that it takes, provided they are reasonable and proportionate, are acceptable. Ultimately, any assessment of that depends on the particular circumstances.

Senator RHIANNON: If you're the legal adviser, how can you be talking like that when the question was related to unarmed people going about their ordinary business just trying to eke out a living when they can't even return home to their land? These are refugees just trying to live. Now they could be targeted. How could you say that?

Mr Larsen : It depends on the circumstances. There are obviously circumstances in which Israel faces risks from particular locations, including Gaza. Israel has a right to respond to those risks in proportionate and reasonable terms.

Senator RHIANNON: Has the Australian government sought any reassurance from the Israeli government about how these weapons will be used?

Ms Yu : No. Not specifically on those weapons.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. I want to move on to how DFAT presents Smartraveler on their website. I notice on the map, which you would be well aware of, we've got Israel, West Bank and the Gaza Strip but we have no occupied Palestinian territories. When you read your advice, there's no reference to occupied Palestinian territories. It stands in sharp contrast to similar advice from Smartraveler on the UK site and on the New Zealand site. I'm sure you can't read the writing from there, but you can see my pink highlighting. 'Occupied Palestinian territories' is the term that is used. Why aren't you using the terms 'occupied Palestinian territories' when you give people advice about that region?

Ms Yu : We do not recognise the Palestine state.

Senator RHIANNON: The term that is used is 'occupied Palestinian territories'. I never used the term 'Palestine state'. 'Occupied Palestinian territories' is the term that is used by far by the majority of countries and by our international institutions. While you are considering that, I will add to it because I don't want to be cut off. In 2014, sitting in this room, former senator Brandis declared that the government would no longer use the term 'occupied territory' when referring to Israeli settlements. He described it as a judgemental term and it being inappropriate and unhelpful. So does that mean that, as it's not on the map and there's no description of the occupied Palestinian territories using that term in the Smartraveler, Mr Brandis's declaration in 2014 is now being followed by DFAT?

Ms Yu : I will have to follow up, Senator, on how the Smartraveler map was developed.

Senator RHIANNON: Ms Adamson, would you like to add to this, please?

Ms Adamson : We will need to get back to you.

Senator RHIANNON: Seriously, you just have this wonderful photo. There's dozens and dozens of you here. You know you're coming here to speak about Palestine.

Ms Adamson : We will get it to you as quickly as we can.

CHAIR: Your time is up.

Senator RHIANNON: Thank you.


Back to All News