In the Senates Estimates hearing on March 1st Senator Rhiannon (Australian Greens) posed questions about the Ahed Tamimi case and the US decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, while Senator Abetz (Liberals) reflected on the recognition of who can genuinely qualify to be Palestinian refugees, the monies that get farmed off to support terrorist activities and the legitimacy of UNRWA.
[The videos from Senates Estimates have been provided with the associated transcripts from Hansard.]
Senator RHIANNON: I want to move on to the issue about the US decision to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem. There was a vote in the United Nations General Assembly last year condemning the US for its decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. We abstained on that vote and I noted at the time that our Ambassador to the UN Gillian Bird said that ‘there was much in the resolution that we agreed with, but we abstained’. Can you elaborate on what was meant by that comment, please?
Mr Neuhaus: Our position on Jerusalem, as you know, is that it that needs to be left in the final negotiations for what we hope will be the two-state solution, which Australia has supported over the years and continues to support. In terms of the resolution referring to the two-state solution final negotiations, those are things that we would support in principle. However—and this is consistent with our long-standing policy—we did not feel it appropriate that this resolution be brought on in the UN General Assembly and so we abstained from the resolution.
Senator RHIANNON: You spoke about the peace process there. What is your response to the US decision and how it affects the peace process?
Mr Neuhaus: We’re disappointed by the US decision. We think it complicates the peace process, but we still regard the US as playing a very important role and as a necessary player for any peace process.
Senator RHIANNON: I understand that in the Oslo agreements, and in other attempts to resolve these issues, it has been set out the final status of Jerusalem must be decided in direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Is that the position of Australia?
Mr Neuhaus: That remains the position of Australia.
Senator RHIANNON: Therefore we do have concerns about the US decision?
Mr Neuhaus: Yes. We do.
Senator RHIANNON: Has the government conveyed our concerns about President Trump’s decision directly to the US?
Mr Neuhaus: We have indeed engaged the US on this. The minister herself has engaged the US on this matter, and around that resolution we had discussions with the US in explaining our position. And we explained our position both to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority in those discussions.
Senator RHIANNON: At what level was that, please? Was it a public statement or a press release? Or was it actually ambassador to ambassador, minister to minister.
Mr Neuhaus: Ambassador to ambassador, minister to minister is more appropriate. We try to avoid too many public statements, as we’ve already discussed on other issues today.
Senator RHIANNON: I imagine that the US urged us to vote with them?
Mr Neuhaus: Of course.
Senator RHIANNON: Or to at least abstain.
Mr Neuhaus: Yes, they urged us to vote against the resolution.
Senator RHIANNON: Did the US urge Australia to lobby countries in our region to also abstain or vote against the resolution?
Mr Neuhaus: No. As we made our position clear to them, it wasn’t appropriate.
Senator RHIANNON: Australian embassy officials in the Pacific were not tasked with making representations on this issue?
Mr Neuhaus: No, but in New York, we did make it clear how we were going to vote.
Senator RHIANNON: So we are expected to believe that it’s pure coincidence that not one Pacific Island country supported the resolution, when the vast majority of other states supported it. The trend in the voting of those Pacific countries on these issues was different from how they’ve voted in the past. We had nothing to do with that change?
Mr Neuhaus: No. I can actually say we did not have anything to do with that.
Senator RHIANNON: In your view, were they contacted by the US? Was there a threat to withdraw aid—considering that was being spoken about?
Mr Neuhaus: I’m sure they were contacted by the US—I mean, the US was lobbying on this issue. I’m unable to comment as to any threats with regard to aid. I’m not aware of them.
Senator RHIANNON: Has the Australian government made any contact with Israeli counterparts around the arrest and detention of Ahed Tamimi, who was detained on 19 December and continues to be held while she awaits trial?
Mr Neuhaus: Yes, we’ve had contact on that case.
Senator RHIANNON: What was the context for the contact, please?
Mr Neuhaus: I will go into more detail on that. It’s been raised by our embassy in Israel.
Senator RHIANNON: Was it raised that this young woman should not be held, because if she was in a civil court in Israel she wouldn’t be held in this way? Was it raised that she should not be held?
Mr Neuhaus: This is not the first of these sorts of issues which we have raised on several occasions. We always raise them consistent with broader human rights concerns, particularly in the case of minors, as we’ve discussed in other Senate estimates hearings.
Senator RHIANNON: Did you raise that the trial should not occur in a closed court?
Mr Neuhaus: I can’t say precisely what was said at that time, but, as a general position, that is something we’re not comfortable with.
Senator RHIANNON: Can you take it on notice to release what the statement was or, otherwise, what the contents of the statement were? Can you take that on notice, please?
Mr Neuhaus: I could, but the discussions are, in fact, private, but we’ll give you as much detail as we can.
Senator RHIANNON: Thank you. Will the Australian government insist on having an international observer attend the court hearings of Ahed Tamimi to ensure a fair trial takes place?
Mr Neuhaus: We do attend some cases. I can’t say at this point whether that would be one that we would necessarily attend.
Senator RHIANNON: But you will consider attending?
Mr Neuhaus: We’re certainly prepared to consider it.
Senator RHIANNON: Has the Australian government raised concerns with Israel regarding the other Palestinian children currently held in Israeli detention? I understand there are about 350 Palestinian children held in Israeli military jails?
Mr Neuhaus: We have consistently raised the issue of minors in detention, yes.
Senator RHIANNON: What does ‘consistently’ mean, please?
Mr Neuhaus: That means: on occasions when we meet. I myself meet with the ambassador here fairly frequently, but it happens more frequently at our post in Tel Aviv.
Senator RHIANNON: Again, does ‘frequently’ mean: once every six months?
Mr Neuhaus: No, more frequently. We make representations every one or two months on a range of issues, but that is one in which we have been quite frequent.
Senator RHIANNON: Thank you.
Senator ABETZ: The aid inflow to the Palestinian Authority was in total estimated to be $661 million, of which Australia provided about $10 million. Is that correct?
Ms Adamson: That was our answer, Senator.
Senator ABETZ: And then in answer 31 you very helpfully tell me how much was paid out by the authority in the welfare association for families of martyrs and you provide me with the monetary terms in shekels. Thank goodness my state school education taught me how to drive a calculator, but can I say it was singularly unhelpful of the official that thought to do that. If my calculations are right, there was a considerable sum paid out.
Ms Adamson: Senator, we’re not—
Senator ABETZ: Are we concerned that our aid money is in effect assisting the Palestinian Authority to be paying out under this welfare association for families of martyrs, which basically assists and encourages terrorism, suicide bombers et cetera?
Mr Neuhaus: It’s good to be discussing this again with you, Senator Abetz. With regard to the Palestinian Authority, as we’ve advised before, this goes through a World Bank multidonor trust fund to ensure the screening of this, and we are confident that none of this money would go anywhere near this activity.
Senator ABETZ: Of course not. But if we didn’t provide all this foreign aid—
Senator SINGH: All this foreign aid!
Senator ABETZ: Yes, it is hundreds of millions of dollars, and we’re talking about the world community here—the Palestinian Authority would not be able to have this discretionary funding. I would’ve thought, Senator, that the support of families that are encouraged to sacrifice their children on the basis that they will be paid monies is not something that we should be scoffing at. I find it reprehensible and I want to know what we are doing to monitor to ensure that we are not in effect liberating Palestinian Authority money by them using our money as aid for their normal requirements and that then freeing up their money. Sure, it’s not the money, and the money trail would show that it doesn’t flow through, but clearly they must have sufficient funds of their own to fund this.
Mr Neuhaus: Well, Senator Abetz, I cannot comment on where the money that you’re referring to would come from, but I do know that the money—
Senator ABETZ: If it doesn’t come from foreign aid money—
Senator WONG: Chair!
CHAIR: Senator Abetz, you did ask a question. Mr Neuhaus was about two words into his reply, so possibly give him the courtesy of letting him answer first.
Mr Neuhaus: I can assure you that the money that is given by both the Australian government and the international community, which helps millions of Palestinians and educates hundreds of thousands of children—and I think this has been observed by many senators here as well—is carefully monitored and is used for those proper purposes.
Senator ABETZ: And wouldn’t the Palestinian authority be able to pay for these very good and worthwhile projects if they weren’t shovelling the money out the door to encourage terrorism amongst their people and subsidising the families of suicide bombers?
Mr Neuhaus: No-one agrees with subsidising the families of suicide bombers, and we’ve made that point. But I think the proportions are significantly different.
Senator ABETZ: Well, not all that different. But I will allow you to re-examine them once you’ve done the conversion from Israeli shekels. I would invite you to undertake that.
Mr Neuhaus: We’ll be happy to do that.
Senator ABETZ: Are you aware that the US House of Representatives in December unanimously passed the Taylor Force Act, which links continued US aid to the Palestinian authority ceasing such payments, and has DFAT recommended that the government consider the same approach? I repeat that the US House of Representatives unanimously passed that; it was bipartisan. I think it’s something that we should give serious consideration to.
Mr Neuhaus: We are very aware of that.
Senator ABETZ: Right. You’re aware of it.
Mr Neuhaus: Yes.
Senator ABETZ: That’s one thing. What are you doing about it? Are you saying, ‘Interesting, but no action,’ or, ‘Very interesting, and we should follow suit’?
Mr Neuhaus: That will depend on the decision of the government. We are the servants of the government.
Senator ABETZ: Yes, and have you made any recommendations—without telling me what they are—to the government about this?
Mr Neuhaus: We have not made any recommendations on this issue at this time.
Senator ABETZ: All right. Are we satisfied that the classification of ‘Palestinian refugee’ is a robust classification? As I understand it, there are Palestinians living in Gaza, which has no Israeli presence and is part of what is termed ‘Palestine’, yet people living in Palestine who are Palestinian are classified and then funded as Palestinian refugees?
Mr Neuhaus: The question you ask goes, I suppose, to the scope of UNWRA itself and who it provides support to.
Senator ABETZ: And whom we support?
Mr Neuhaus: And whom we and the international community support.
Senator ABETZ: Yes. And what is the rationale for that? As I understand it, there is no other population who are living within their own country that is not occupied by other forces that would be considered to be refugees, so this is a unique carve-out.
Mr Neuhaus: Well, it is quite unique, and UNWRA itself is a very unique organisation because of the rather unique circumstances of the Palestinian territories. We all know the history of how we got to where we are now.
Senator ABETZ: Yes, but what’s the justification, what’s the rationale, for this special treatment? It’s not the normal definition of ‘refugee’, and it helps boost the numbers. Also, there are people in Jordan, for example, who are citizens of Jordan, but they are still classified for UNWRA as Palestinian refugees.
Mr Neuhaus: It does depend on the origins. It’s quite a complex situation that we enter into. Some people have, indeed, achieved Jordanian citizenship over the years, but many of these people—most of them—are from the Palestinian territories. But this is a very fluid part of the world, when you look back, since the 1940s.
Senator ABETZ: It’s not the only part fluid part of the world, and I want to get an understanding as to why there is this special treatment and categorisation in relation to ‘Palestinian refugee’ in comparison to a lot of other populations. Can you please take that on notice and provide me with a detailed answer. I will place more questions on notice.
Mr Neuhaus: Very happy to provide a detailed answer—and that will require a lawyer’s also involved.