Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate reaffirms Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism.

I welcome the fact that the Senate has agreed to give precedence to this motion and the opportunity for this matter to be considered by the Senate, because, in doing so, it provides the Labor Party, crossbench senators and the entire Senate with an opportunity—an opportunity to be clear, concise and principled in standing with Israel and in restating Israel's inherent right to self-defence.

As I said in the suspension debate, that right to self-defence should not be qualified by who the attacker is. We would not, and nor would any other country, tolerate being attacked by any terrorist organisation in the ways that Israel is attacked by terrorist organisations. We are all too sadly aware of what occurred on October 7, with the largest slaughter of Jews on a single day since the Holocaust, where women and babies were murdered and raped, where young people at a music festival were slaughtered in the early hours of the morning. Those horrific incidents sit in the history books and will forever more.

We're all sadly aware of the tragic loss of life that has continued to ensue since then. They include hostages who Hamas held and who have died in captivity and, of course, the thousands of Palestinians living in Gaza who have died as a result of this war, as a result of Hamas initiating this war and as a result of Hamas hiding amongst them, behind them and underneath them in the most reprehensible of ways, where terrorist infrastructure and capabilities have been established at the expense of the Palestinian people. We are all too aware that Hamas has a tunnel network estimated to go some six storeys deep—bigger than the New York subway system—and that what Israel has been seeking to destroy is those terrorist capabilities and infrastructure that have left Palestinian peoples so exposed during the course of this war.

What perhaps has not been so clear to all in the media coverage is that during the conduct of this war since October 7, time and again Israel has continued to be attacked, rockets have been launched at Israel—some from within Gaza by Hamas and many from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah and, of course, infamously, even from Iran. Israel has an inherent right, as a sovereign nation and as a democratic nation, to defend itself against these attacks.

We bring forward this motion today because of deeply concerning and troubling reports of the position taken by the Albanese government. These reports suggest that the Albanese government has told the Israeli Ambassador to Australia that they would not stand with Israel were it to respond to Hezbollah's attacks. These are troubling, concerning reports of a further weakening by the Albanese government of its position in relation to Israel's right to self-defence. We bring this forward to be clear and to be consistent with statements made in this chamber before, consistent with motions passed in this chamber before, consistent with the position not just of ourselves as the Liberal and National parties but consistent with the position that was the position of the Australian Labor Party.

Consistency is something that has, sadly, gone missing through this debate. During the months since October 7 we have seen the Labor Party change the position of the Australian government in relation to a two-state solution. We have long been clear and bipartisan in this nation about the need for a two-state solution. The desire to see a peaceful outcome in the Middle East, where Israelis and Palestinians do get to live in peace in future is a shared one. How that is achieved also matters.

I note the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Wong. I would say several things in relation to this amendment. Firstly, it is not necessary and should not be necessary to qualify the motion that we have moved. The motion that we have moved is clear in relation to Israel's inherent right to self-defence. It does not seek to reflect upon the pathway to a two-state solution, but we continue to support a two-state solution and have been clear about that. We do not support a two-state-solution approach, as the Albanese government has unilaterally changed Australia's position to be—one that sees a potential premature recognition of a state of Palestine before the difficult issues have been addressed.

I foreshadow that the opposition will move to amend Senator Wong's amendment, consistent with the approach we took last week and consistent with the approach we have held to, not just since 7 October and not just since the last election—the approach that has been held to for many years. We will move to amend that by being clear that there are preconditions for recognition of a state of Palestine as part of a two-state solution and that recognition must come with an acknowledgement by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist—the most fundamental necessity for a two-state solution to be lasting and peaceful. We will move to add the precondition that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state: again, something that the parliament stated clearly, that the minister has said clearly and that we must be clear about when speaking of a two-state solution; again, the precondition that the Palestinian Authority is reformed, including major security and governance reforms; and, once again, statements that the government has made.

There should be no problem if they wish to move their amendment to support these preconditions of a two-state solution, these preconditions of the recognition of Palestine, because they are indeed things the government says it supports. Critically, though, it must also include resolution of final-status issues, including agreed state borders and rights of return, as well as appropriate security guarantees between the parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders. If a two-state solution is to be achieved, to be upheld and to provide for a peaceful coexistence of Israeli and Palestinian peoples in the future then the difficult questions that have blocked the path to peace until now must be addressed. And those difficult questions, in terms of agreement on borders, rights of return and security guarantees, are necessary preconditions for peace to occur.

As we have been clear, there have been many points of concern about the Albanese government's response to policy in relation to Israel since the last election. We saw, immediately after the election, the government change Australia's votes in relation to human rights motions and investigations. We've seen the government change Australia's position in relation to recognition of Jerusalem. We've seen the government change Australia's position in relation to language around Palestinian territories and Israeli settlements. There has been change after change after change, and these all pre-dated what occurred in relation to the 7 October terrorist attacks.

We saw the government double Australian taxpayer funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, an agency that, in the doubling of the funding, subsequently was accused and had staff for being involved in the 7 October attacks and has been found by the UN to be in breach of neutrality principles. These breaches, again and again—before we even get to the shifts that have occurred since 7 October—are a clear contradiction of the commitments the Albanese government gave prior to the last election. They promised there would be no division, and there was no division, between the major parties in relation to Australia's support for Israel, that it was not conditional upon who won the election.

They promised Australia's Jewish community that they should feel confident and proud that, irrespective of who formed government, it would be one that was committed to safeguarding the interests of that community, including those interests in relation to the State of Israel. Yet the government, having made those promises, then broke them time and again in the lead-up to October 7.

But, most distressingly, the government has continued to break them since October 7. On 16 October, we stood solemnly in this chamber in a bipartisan way—as they did in the other place too—made clear a statement of principles condemning those attacks and made clear our support for the State of Israel and its right to self-defence. We on this side have been consistent in standing by that motion and our principles ever since, even as the Albanese government has changed Australia's position at the UN, voted for ceasefire motions that overlooked the need for hostages to be released, voted for recognition of Palestine in a way that changed the longstanding bipartisan consensus, and now, as it is reported, has told the Israeli ambassador that Australia's support cannot be relied upon in relation to the defence of the State of Israel from terrorist attacks by Hezbollah.

And how was that message delivered? It appears to have been delivered in the most insulting way possible. The foreign minister and her junior minister or department sought to issue a summons to the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, but was the message then delivered by the minister herself? No, it was delivered by her junior minister, as she acknowledged during question time. Why, on such a grave and significant matter, would such a message—a message that we do not agree with but that is of such significance—be delegated to an assistant minister to give? Why would that happen unless it was intended to be an insulting gesture, as well as a grievously wrong message to send?

We would urge the government to accept the purity of the motion before us and the simplicity and consistency that comes with reaffirming Israel's inherent right to self-defence. We would urge the government to take that opportunity, if there is misunderstanding from media reports, to clear it up by supporting this motion. But, if the government insists upon its amendment, we have been clear, in terms of the approach of the coalition, consistent with the approach taken in the House of Representatives, consistent with the approach taken in this place last week and consistent with our approach throughout the years, unlike the inconsistency of those opposite.