Voice Over

TSJC comment

Australia applied international law principles over the Tasman Sea with New Zealand.

Why weren't the same principles used with East Timor?

On July 25, Australia and New Zealand signed a maritime boundary treaty.

In places of overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (which occurs in areas where coastlines are less than 400 nautical miles apart) as is the case off Norfolk and Macquarie islands, the boundary was established along the median (halfway) line.

This is what current International Law overwhelmingly supports.

Yet in the Timor Sea dispute where billions of dollars worth of oil and gas is at stake, the Australian Government has blatantly refused to even consider establishing a permanent maritime boundary along the median line in accordance with current international law.

Despite there being over 50 examples of median line resolutions in cases when two countries are less than 400 nautical miles apart, the Australian Government relies on the continental shelf argument that has been outdated and irrelevant since the 1982 UN Convention of Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The only example, world wide, of a boundary being established along the continental shelf in such cases, is the 1972 Indonesia/Australia boundary.

The Howard Government used East Timor's extreme poverty to pressure it to accept a deal on oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea that no western country would ever accept.

That is shameful.

East Timor is the poorest country in Asia.

Facing extreme levels of poverty, East Timor can not afford to let this dispute drag out for years.

Taking on average, a million dollars a day in contested oil and gas royalties from the Timor Sea, the Australian Government has been stalling negotiations on permanent maritime boundaries and has made thinly veiled threats to drag the dispute out for decades.

The Australian Government has been taking full advantage of East Timor's fragile financial state and forcing it into a corner. It would not get away with this type of behaviour towards a developed and wealthy nation.

Under international law East Timor would be entitled to all or nearly all proceeds from the Greater Sunrise oil and gas fields not the unfair deal it's being forced to accept.

If the dispute was taken to be settled by the independent umpire at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it is extremely likely that a permanent maritime boundary would be established along the median line and with equitable lateral boundaries that would give East Timor most, if not all of the Greater sunrise gas field worth an estimated $40 billion in Government royalties.

However, in March 2002 - two months before East Timor's independence - the Australian Government secretly and pre-emptively withdrew recognition of the maritime boundary jurisdiction of the ICJ.

If the Australian Government was confident in it's own legal arguments, why would it deny East Timor the right to challenge its actions in an independent and authorative forum?

We will be judged around the world by the actions of the Howard Government.

By shunning multilateral organizations such as the UN and instead relying on a 'might is right' attitude in settling international disputes, the Howard Government is making Australia to be seen as a bully in the region.

East Timor, a third world country, needs to be compensated for the $2 billion in taxes and royalties already wrongfully taken under an unfair system.

Since 1999, the Australian Government has taken over $2 billion dollars in contested royalties from the Laminaria, Corallina fields.

These fields are just outside of the JPDA and are in an area that East Timor claims is part of its Exclusive Economic Zone. This claim is based on principles of international law set out in UNCLOS 1982 and in case law.

International Law also requires Australia to 'show restraint' in exploiting contested resources, but unfortunately it has not held any of the contested royalties in a trust fund.

As a just maritime boundary established in accordance with current International Law, would put these field in East Timor's jurisdiction, East Timor should be compensated for the $2 billion inappropriately taken by the Australian Government.

This money is vital to build hospitals, schools and to save the lives of children.

East Timor has a tiny annual budget of approximately $100 million.

The $2 billion that Australia has taken from East Timor since 1999, is equal to four years of East Timor's Gross Domestic Product. (For Australia it's about one day's worth.)

If delivered to East Timor, that money would have a dramatic impact on efforts to overcome the widespread hunger, illiteracy and preventable disease that it currently faces.

This issue is not about Australia being 'generous' to East Timor, it's about what East Timor is legally entitled to under International Law.