Mr. Gerry Liston:

Yes. The position advanced yesterday was that Article 24 of the imports regulation provides a public policy basis in relation to goods but that there is no equivalent for services. It was also indicated that the Attorney General's advice supports this position. As the Senator said, though, the advice is in the public domain and I think it is clear that the Attorney General says the very opposite. It is true that he states "Article 24(2)(a) represents specific authorisation from the EU for Member States" to ban goods on grounds of public policy. In his conclusion addressing the public policy exemption, however - and this is a long quote but I think it is important - he stated:

it may be open to the State to argue that the proposed offences [plural] under the [occupied territories] Bill are necessary to uphold respect for the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for human dignity [all issues relevant to public policy]. It can also be argued that the ICJ Opinion represents an authoritative statement that Israel's occupation of the OPT is unlawful and a breach of international law and that the offences [plural] proposed to be created by the Bill represent the fulfilment by the State of the obligations referred to in the ICJ Opinion.

The offences under the occupied territories Bill cover both goods and services and this is what the Attorney General was addressing in that crux paragraph of his opinion. It is true that at one point he refers to public policy as providing a basis for introducing additional "measures prohibiting trade in goods" from the illegal settlements, but nowhere does he make the distinction that was made yesterday between the application of public policy to goods only and not to services. I think this is just a reference to goods in the context of the paragraph in which he is referring to goods. When you read the opinion as a whole, however, it is clear he is referring to all the offences and the Bill.