The issue flared in the upper house Senate this week with Attorney-General George Brandis issuing a statement to clarify Canberra's stance on the controversial question of the legality of settler homes.
"The description of areas which are the subject of negotiations in the course of the peace process by reference to historical events is unhelpful," he said in the statement yesterday.
"The description of East Jerusalem as 'occupied' East Jerusalem is a term freighted with pejorative implications which is neither appropriate nor useful.
He added that Canberra supported a peaceful solution to the dispute "which recognises the right of Israel to exist peacefully within secure borders and also recognises the aspiration to statehood of the Palestinian people".
Also Read
Israel's army seized the West Bank, including Arab east Jerusalem, in the Six-Day War of 1967.
It later annexed the entire eastern sector, in a move that has never been recognised by the international community.
Brandis sparked a heated debate on Wednesday evening in the Senate when he stated that no Australian government of either political persuasion "acknowledges or accepts" the use of the word "occupied".
Independent senator Nick Xenophon suggested that dropping the term "occupied" would represent a "massive shift" in Australia's foreign policy, Australian Associated Press reported.