Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) (11:30 AM) —This is exactly the sort of waste of time that this chamber has to put up with time and time again. Senators from the Australian Democrats and One Nation sought a briefing on some of these matters before the matter came into the Senate. They did their homework and sought clarification on a whole range of issues so that we could truncate this debate. We are now going back to seeking explanations on the treaty that went through, as I understand it, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It was considered by that parliamentary committee and now Senator Brown is taking us through the treaty. It has been signed by the Prime Minister of East Timor and by the Australian government. It has the force of international law now as a treaty between the two governments and we are seeking, by the actual legislation before us, to implement this treaty. Senator Brown, in his previous comments, talked about a selective approach to treaties. It is very interesting that he does not seem to want this particular treaty that we signed with East Timor implemented.

In relation to the International Court of Justice, the misrepresentations made by the honourable senator were manifold. I suggest to him that mere repetition of bland assertions does not turn them into fact in the absence of evidence. In relation to the International Court of Justice, out of 189 members only 61 members have signed up. Only about one-third of the world community have signed up to the International Court of Justice. Out of that one-third, the majority have reservations in relation to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice—a majority of the 61 members. So Australia is not some international pariah having put its own reservation on the International Court of Justice; it is with the majority of the countries that have signed up to the International Court of Justice in putting on a reservation.

At the end of the day—and this might come as a surprise to Senator Brown and the Australian Greens—the first obligation of the Australian parliament is, in fact, to the Australian people. We have a huge maritime boundary—I was about to say bigger than anybody else's but I am not sure whether that is necessarily correct, so I will not say that; but pretty big by world standards would, I think, be a safe assertion to make. We seek to negotiate these things. I can see the lawyers already rubbing their hands at Senator Brown's amendment. They can see the trips to The Hague or wherever the International Court of Justice sits and they can see the meter ticking over.

If there is one thing that has really taken hold in the Australian community in recent times it has been alternate dispute resolution. You do not rush off to court every time you have a little problem; you sit down, negotiate and see whether you can achieve an outcome. That is what we are doing with New Zealand, on the other side of the map of Australia, on the south-east part of our nation. On the north-west part of our nation, we are having dealings with East Timor. That is as it ought to be. The amendment is to put in these arbitrary timetables that say, `If a matter is not determined by 31 December 2005, well, guess what?' If I were the East Timorese government reading this amendment, if it were to get in, I would sit back and say, `We are not negotiating one little bit and, as a result, off to court we go.'

I would be gobsmacked if this matter were resolved in the International Court of Justice within 12 months. But Senator Brown's amendment would mean that the legislation would no longer be in force. What is the purpose of this legislation? It is to give effect to the treaty that East Timor signed with Australia. You have to ask what motivates Senator Brown with this type of amendment. It is not to implement this particular international treaty. It seems now that he is cherry picking on international treaties. They no longer seem to have this great aura that we should bow down and worship them, as Senator Brown would have us do with the International Court of Justice. He now wants to cherry pick as well, which is very interesting. In fact, that is what you ought to do as a sovereign nation. You ought to have a look at each international treaty and ask a very simple question: is it within Australia's interest? I confess, standing in the Australian parliament, that is one of the major tests I apply to any international treaty that we might sign: is it within Australia's interest? It should surely be one of the fundamental questions.

We, along with the majority of the countries that have signed up to the International Court of Justice, have put that ruler over the International Court of Justice and said, `It's pretty good but we've got reservations in certain areas.' We are able to put those reservations into the International Court of Justice treaty and we have done so, along with the majority of the countries that have signed up to it. That is acting responsibly not only internationally but also nationally.

I indicate that article 8 of the unitisation agreement allows redetermination of the apportionment ratio upon technical grounds at the request of either treaty partner. A redetermination of this kind must not occur within five years of any prior technical redetermination. Redetermination on any other ground may occur at any time by agreement between the parties to the treaty.

The government oppose the Green amendments because they seek to put unrealistic timetables not only on the negotiations but also on the International Court of Justice. I would have thought that if you had legislation in this country saying that the High Court had to make a decision by a particular time or else, the judiciary would take a very dim view of that. If I were the International Court of Justice I would be saying if this were passed, `Fancy this Green senator from Tasmania trying to put a timetable on the International Court of Justice'—and that is basically what he is seeking to do. These are ill-considered amendments. The government's position is that we will not be referring this to the International Court of Justice, because we prefer to do things by negotiation. Seeking to force the matter into court and forcing unrealistic timetables on the International Court of Justice is not the approach of this government.

Goodwill to East Timor has been shown by this government in particular and by all Australians. We have made a significant contribution to East Timor and we will continue to do so. It is a matter of regret when two good friends cannot agree on something, but to try to play the card that just because two good friends cannot agree on a particular matter it is going to sour relations and blow up into a Seattle type situation is to use the sort of extravagant language that we have unfortunately become quite used to from Senator Brown.

It might be interesting for people to know that the honourable senator speaks with the same sort of passion, the same sort of emotion and the same sorts of adjectives in relation to the people of East Timor as he does in relation to the issue of whether or not we ought to be wearing jackets in this chamber. It is an act that is repeated time and time again. We have now spent a considerable period of time on this bill. The position of the government on these amendments is quite clear, and I do not intend to take any further part in the debate on them.