Photo: Martin Wurt/OxfamAUS.

It seems the long-standing tradition of setting Australia's national boundaries according to international law is being jettisoned in favour of a new "elastic band" approach, explains James Ensor.

The elastic band approach involves the Australian government shrinking or stretching our borders according to the principles of self-interest and greed. This new policy approach recently achieved new contortions of complexity as government officials attempted to simultaneously stretch and shrink our elastic borders.

Last November, 14 asylum seekers arrived on Melville Island - some 50 kilometres off our northern coast. To avoid responding to their cases, the government shrunk our national borders by excising Melville Island from the Australian migration zone. At the same time in Darwin, Australian government negotiators were furiously stretching our elastic border to a point hundreds of kilometres off our northern coast in initial negotiations over a new maritime boundary with East Timor.

Under the waters of the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor lie vast reserves of oil and natural gas worth tens of billions of dollars. These reserves lie in an area of the Timor Sea that is currently subject to overlapping maritime boundary claims by East Timor and Australia. The Australian government negotiators claimed that our maritime boundary extends to the edge of the Australian continental shelf - 400 kilometres off our northern coast - and far closer to East Timor than Australia. Such an outcome to boundary negotiations would bring the vast bulk of revenue from the oil and gas deposits into Canberra's rather than Dili's coffers.

East Timor is one of the poorest countries in the world, and desperately needs revenues from the Timor Sea oil and gas reserves. There is a growing resentment in East Timor towards what is widely perceived as Australia's lack of good faith in the maritime boundary negotiations which will determine our relative shares of the oil and gas reserves. And the East Timorese have a point. Under interim Treaty arrangements, the major oil and gas fields lie in territory exclusively claimed by Australia, sending the vast bulk of revenue flows to Canberra. However, under international maritime law, East Timor could successfully lay claim to a far greater proportion of the oil and gas reserves of the Timor Sea. This would be achieved by the establishment of a maritime boundary along a middle line between the Australian and East Timorese coasts, through the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as judged by an independent umpire, the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

During 2002 the Australian government ruled out this option for East Timor by withdrawing from the compulsory maritime boundary arbitration mechanisms of UNCLOS and the ICJ. This effectively prevents East Timor from seeking independent resolution under international law of the disputed maritime boundary between the two countries and ensures Australia can continue to delay maritime boundary negotiations.

The elastic band approach to fencing our borders has become nothing short of high farce. Australia must conduct its affairs in a manner consistent with international maritime law and our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Story by James Ensor, Director of Public Policy and Outreach.

Tell the Australian government the elastic band approach is not on. Go to Get active to find out how you can take action.