Senator STOTT DESPOJA (1:14 PM) —The Australian Democrats strongly support this amendment. As I said in my remarks in the second reading debate, had it not already been circulated I would have circulated a comparable amendment in my name. Senator John Cherry and I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, have explained our opposition to the Australian government's withdrawal from the ICJ. The fact that prior notification was not given to the East Timorese is something else we find quite appalling. I think the use of the term `bullying' is quite appropriate in this context. Clearly it does not have the same connotations that some language might have in this place. In fact, so strong was the response to one particular word—blackmail—someone was thrown out. It is useful to note that in the last year the word `blackmail' was used at least 17 times in debates in this chamber. Most recently it was used in a comment by—and I am happy to be corrected—I think Senator Cook in a question time in the last couple of days in response to Senator Coonan. Maybe `bullying' is an acceptable term; it certainly is appropriate in the case today.

The Australian Democrats put our opposition and concerns about the ICJ on the record in our submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties during its examination of the treaty last year. We recorded our opposition to the declaration made by the Australian government in March last year to exclude Australia from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and UNCLOS with respect to maritime boundary disputes. We believe it is in Australia's best interests to support the structures and the principles of the international legal system, one that has been established to promote collective security, maintain peace and help resolve disputes. In practical terms, this means submitting to the rule of law even when this is contrary to our more immediate financial interests. Our withdrawal from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with respect to maritime boundary disputes not only is contrary to our national interest but also sets a poor example to the people of East Timor.

I have given examples of other responses to this decision by Australia from the submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. As noted in the committee's report, we are well placed as a nation to train East Timorese workers who seek to gain employment in the resource industry or who are looking for information about infrastructure—be it education, the public sector or the creation of good governance structures—yet Australia's decision on the ICJ provides a very poor example to the East Timorese. I think the amendment before us is a good one. I commend it to the Senate and I would hope that the opposition would support it, given that there are no defensible reasons for us to be exempt from the ICJ jurisdiction in relation to maritime boundaries. The Australian Democrats put on record our strong support for the amendment before us.