Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 today, three senators each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75. Senator Gallagher proposed a matter of urgency and Senators Roberts and Siewert proposed matters of public importance for discussion. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Roberts:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The prosecution of the Christian community in south-east Queensland.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, it is incumbent on me to bring to this chamber information about the persecution through prosecution of Christian groups in South-East Queensland. When this MPI was sent forth today, I am sure my colleagues wondered how in 2017 Australian Christians could possibly be persecuted. The persecution and prosecution is real; it is hurtful to freedom of religion and it is serious.

This is Lent. At this time many Christians reflect on the sacrifices that the Lord God and his only son, Jesus Christ, made in the lead-up to his prosecution and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. It is a time for reflection and to recall the sacrifices we can make in our lives, to become aware of our spirituality and the suffering of others around us. The suffering and sacrifice of South-East Queensland's Christian community is profound. Recently, I met with Reverend Josh Williamson and Ryan Hemelaar. These people are missionaries. They provide Christian outreach throughout South-East Queensland. They evangelise within the guidelines and proper processes prescribed by Queensland's Peaceful Assembly Act. They feed the poor, comfort the dispossessed and shelter those in need with God's love and care.

It will shock our country to learn that these innocent and decent people are targeted by Queensland state governments of various political colours, which aim to stop them from peaceful assembly and then chase them out of town. They are persecuted—that is correct—and prosecuted for religious assembly; I will explain shortly how. At no other point has our nation's Christian community been under such grotesque attack—a vicious, targeted attack.

The Turnbull government's statement on so-called multiculturalism, as outlined on the front page of today's The Australian, still tried to band-aid over the reality that multiculturalism is a failed ideology that strikes at the heart of our proud national heritage. His statement must go further and acknowledge our nation's Christian heritage, a heritage embodied on our beautiful flag. It is now incumbent on this chamber to rally against those who would vilify our Christian community.

This is Australia; it is not Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or some other despotic Islamic dictatorship. We must intervene in any way we can if we are to protect Christian dignity, protect the dignity of Australian government institutions, protect freedom of religion and protect Australians from conducting the most basic of services to this community.

This persecution story was recently told in The Courier Mailon 9 February 2017, where it was revealed how intense the harassment of the street preachers is. I am blessed enough to have a street preacher on my team here in Parliament House. He and his family have often worked long days in other jobs and then go forth at night to provide service and healing to the community until late at night. Street preachers, I am told, are hunted down and persecuted everywhere in Australia. One would think that this is in Saudi Arabia; however, it is South-East Queensland that I will pay particular attention to.

Street preachers, from what I have seen, assemble in spots like Brisbane's Queen Street Mall—maybe five to 10 preachers. Sometimes they are Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons; at other times they are a range of other denominations. They set up a little table, place the holy Scripture on it and talk to people who come by. Sometimes they may give a little talk, using a microphone. They talk about Jesus, just as in the same way we use the words of Jesus when we open with prayer in this chamber every day.

On occasions, they may provide literature about the healing, forgiveness and love of Christianity, and on how to obtain help if you are in need of support. I also see the work of Charlie Lin, New South Wales state MP, in pushing back against control-orientated Leftists removing the word 'mateship' in reference to the Kokoda Track as similar to the work of protecting Christians. To deny our national heritage and acknowledgement of important, historical events, such as the Kokoda Track, is no different to prosecuting Christians and campaigning to remove Christian symbols from our flag.

This debate would start to turn the tide against multicultural Marxism, if we were to pull it together. The persecution of street preachers takes many forms. Each street preacher in the information I will provide has applied for a permit under Queensland's Peaceful Assembly Act. They gather under the protection of the law and may not, by act of parliament, be moved on or harassed in the performance of that assembly, just like unions cannot be harassed if they gather, or just like Muslims cannot be—and certainly are not—harassed if they decide to take to the streets of Lakemba, Holland Park or Kerrabee during Friday prayers. Heaven forbid that a unionist or a Muslim in this country ever be brought to heel within the bounds of the law! Local governments, both Labor- and Liberal-orientated, and the Queensland state police, have harassed Christian preachers by issuing fines, illegal move-on notices and charges such as disobeying police orders and intimidation of a police officer.

In Queensland, an umbrella Christian organisation called Operation 513 provides logistical support for about 21 different denominations in the application of permits for street preaching. One of the preachers is Ryan Hemelaar, who is a most unassuming gentleman—polite, amenable and kind. He has been fined by Brisbane City Council for such things as handing out written material, using an amplifier and placing an A-frame sign with a bible verse on it. He has been fined for alleged obstruction; for unreasonably disturbing any person lawfully using a mall by simply having have friendly conversation with someone on a seat; for interrupting, disturbing or frustrating other mall users by simply having a friendly conversation with someone on a seat; for stocking or storing goods in a mall; and for setting up a free bible table. What a charge sheet! His fines have gone into the thousands of dollars—tens of thousands of dollars for speaking up.

Mr Luke Laine is the first of Brisbane City Council's officers who has started the process of targeting these Christian groups, including Mr Hemelaar. Mr Laine is on tape stating that he wanted to close these people down, as if the authorising of state religion was his sole purview. Closing down Christianity is the real aim. It is part of the cultural Marxist march. It is my view that Brisbane City Council and its officers have been loose with the truth when they claimed in The Courier Mail that the street preachers harass people walking by. What a load of lies to say they hurl abuse. Anyone who conducts street preaching knows that if you want to ensure that Christ's message gets through, you cannot go hard at people; we have to emulate the grace, dignity and respect of Christ himself.

I am told that in most instances these fines were issued after Brisbane City Council officers stood around while Mr Hemelaar had a conversation with someone on a bench—a conversation on a bench! After the chat, Mr Hemelaar gave a card with a Christian message to that person and then the officer went up to the person, asked if Mr Hemelaar had given him anything, and took the card off him and issued a fine. Let that sink in for a minute. A street preacher is fined for doing something you or I could do: apply for a peaceful assembly permit, gather with friends, listen to the community and hear their concerns. But give them a loving message about the word of Christ or perhaps political literature that does not suit with the leftist view of the world, and Brisbane City Council spends ratepayers' money on not only fining these people but also challenging the fines in court.

The Christian values of these people are targeted by the Brisbane City Council Liberal National Party. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane must urgently rescind these fines and allow these God-loving Christians to continue their outreach. If he does not, I can confirm here and now that One Nation will do everything possible to let the good people of Brisbane know this shameful behaviour at the next local government election. One Nation's march will go right to the centre of Brisbane without fear or favour.

My thoughts and concerns are also with the Reverend Josh Williamson. I notice no-one in the room jumped when I said the Reverend Josh Williamson. Can you believe that Reverend Williamson was charged, on the orders of the Palaszczuk government—Gestapo-like tactics—for disobeying a police order and intimidating a police officer? In being cross-examined by the prosecution, the barrister argued that using the title 'Reverend' when giving his name to the police was intimidation. Contemplate this: government resources are being used to prosecute street preachers for intimidating police officers with the word, 'Reverend'. This is a direct and astonishing assault on Christianity. Our world has gone mad. People wonder, with things like this happening, why One Nation is on the rise.

Has the Queensland premier prosecuted anyone for the use of the word 'Imam'? Perhaps the word 'Rabbi' offends the extreme left who are now running Queensland? The left, peppered with hateful anti-Semites, will soon use this success in Queensland to turn on the Jewish community—I have no doubt. Does the word 'Father' offend the premier as well? Heaven forbid! Are people free to practise their religion in South-East Queensland under the Peaceful Assembly Act?

The street preachers are always supportive of the police. One Nation are always supportive of the police. We do not believe that this is a police agenda. I am told that two parties are pushing the police: the first protagonist is the former Deputy Mayor of Logan, Councillor Russell Lutton, who, police told the preachers, was behind pushing the police of Logan to target the street preachers. What an astonishing revelation. You would think a councillor who represented Woodridge, the most socially disadvantaged community in our country, would be more focused on calling the police about break-ins, drug dealings and bashings in his community. Perhaps Councillor Lutton spends a bit too much time down at the TAB watching the dogs.

My message is clear: One Nation rejects your targeting of street preachers and not the targeting of the violent criminals you seek to protect. Councillor Lutton, you are not a proper and fit person to hold office. Resign. It is the case that the Queensland government could have cut these prosecutions off. The Queensland government are the second protagonist. They could have protected the street preachers but they prefer not. The Palaszczuk government—a far scarier word than 'Reverend'—could have brought on legislation to specifically protect street preachers as defined in the meaning of peaceful assembly, not that it should have been needed.

It is my view that the Palaszczuk government has contempt for the Christian community and for the poor that community feeds. The Palaszczuk government's hate is palpable. It is the same hate exhibited by the Logan and Brisbane City councils. Shame on these people; shame on their governments. Today, I extend the—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, could you resume your seat for a moment. I refer you to standing order 193(3):

A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

Please reflect on your contributions in respect of members of the Queensland parliament.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Today I extend a hand of friendship to the other street preachers who have been persecuted: Blake Cannon, Blessing Odugbesan, Maklin Hughes, John Stotschek, George Youssef, Allan Cameron, David Sansbury, Matthew Andersen, Rebekah Hemelaar, Michael Brimson, Desmond Nunns and Lee-Anne Nissen. We stand with you. One Nation will fight for you.

We know that people have been slapped with thousands of dollars of fines. People have been intimidated, humiliated, harassed, targeted and, worse, persecuted, yet vicious sects with violent views and threats are left unpunished for far worse crimes. I am told by the preachers that they have spent over $15,000 in defending charges and fines. Costs have been awarded against the government in some preliminary cases, but the costs awarded do not cover all of the legal fees. The prosecution must stop. Imagine if these people were free to spend that money for its original intent: feeding and clothing the poor of South-East Queensland—the poor who have been abandoned by the Palaszczuk government.

Let's imagine this: under the Palaszczuk government, these preachers were actually violent union bosses. Perhaps they could have been heavy-handed thugs, violent criminals roaming work sites and handing out union membership forms to workers in public, perhaps on Labour day. Would the jackboots be sent in by the Premier then to stop the unionists? No. Would one of the Premier's prosecutors ask a unionist sitting in the dock, 'Is using your union title an intimidation of police officers?' No.

I will tell you what Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's minority Queensland government would do. As reported recently in The Australian, she has used the final parliamentary sitting week of last year to reverse a crackdown on unions, including lifting a requirement for union bosses to publish credit-card statements. Premier Palaszczuk has just given thieving union bosses the right to do as they wish with workers' fees. She has just encouraged the likes of Craig Thompson while prosecuting street preachers. If you are a corrupt, violent union boss, Palaszczuk wants to let you free. If you are a violent criminal of Logan, fear not; Councillor Lutton is too busy betting on the dogs to chase you down. But, if you are a street preacher in Queensland, you cannot even tell a police officer you are a reverend. The persecution of street preachers in South East Queensland must stop.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin by thanking Senator Roberts for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate and to me. Senator Roberts, I want to work with you. I want to agree with you, but you make it so hard with your speeches.

I want to start on the broad point of principle of what Senator Roberts has come to say, and that is that freedom of assembly and freedom of association should entail that people should have the right to express themselves in an orderly and sensible way within council ordinances and rules in a way that allows them to express faith or whatever else, be it Christianity or another issue. They could be preaching about religion or about an altruistic cause. People do and should have that right.

Beyond that, I think what Senator Roberts has been saying is that, in particular, we need to be careful and make sure that people have the space for religious freedom and have the space to express their religious views, and a public place in Brisbane is the type of place that should be allowed. Furthermore, I believe that what Senator Roberts has been saying is that he feels that the individual targeting of Christian street preachers has been excessive, has gone too far and that their rights and liberties have been impacted.

It is hard to speak too much to the specifics of the individual cases. I know there have been certain matters that have gone to court. I had a chance today to look at some of the court documents. As a point of principle, I think what Senator Roberts is saying is actually correct: we need to make sure there is the appropriate space for people to be able to express their views, express faith, and the permit system that exists around the PAA is an appropriate mechanism where you get the balance right between people being able to get up and express their own religious views in the same way as a trade union or organisation would while at the same time having to fall within certain guidelines about what you can and cannot do. People do also have the right to walk unhindered.

So on one level I agree with the principle of what Senator Roberts is saying. On the specifics—again, I cannot go to all the specifics—again, consider the language that is being used here. To use terms like 'cultural Marxism', to refer to it as 'gestapo', to throw around 'anti-Semitism' rather than trying to come here and have a practical, sensible debate about how we can look at reforming some of these laws to make sure that there is that religious freedom and freedom of association—frankly, I think the language just goes a little too far and becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.

If Senator Roberts's case is that council officers have gone too far and are not giving people enough freedom of association and that some of their tactics have been heavy handed, from the evidence I have seen and from the speech, I think he has a valid point. But to go and say that this is cultural Marxism, that it is gestapo-like tactics—and, by the way, pick a dictator. Go down the gestapo path or go down the Marxist path, but changing between the two is getting confusing for us lefties over here! But to bandy about those kinds of terms, to talk about this as a demonstration that Christianity has never been under more attack, I think, is just language that goes too far. I think it becomes counterproductive. I think the point that you want to make is a practical point.

I know that Senator Roberts and I are both big fans of multiculturalism and we're both big fans of multicultural Australia! I note that it was today that the government did come out with their multicultural statement. Senator Roberts in his speech highlighted multiculturalism as a failed ideology. I have to pull him up on that. The success of this nation since white settlement beyond the incredible 40,000 years of Indigenous heritage has been on our ability to embrace wave after wave of immigrants and migrants, not our ability to reject them. For us to be able to take the values, the languages, the cultures, the ideas from around the world and, insofar as those values, cultures and ideas do not conflict with our universal values here as a nation, to be able to embrace them is the success of the Australian story.

On this point of freedom and religious freedom, I did want to say this to Senator Roberts and to others. From the floor of the Australian Senate, as a proud Australian with Iranian heritage, today is, as I am sure all senators are aware, Persian New Year, so I say to all my Irani and non-Irani friends, including my fellow Australian senators: eide shoma mobarak. We can come back to my office and we can practise those words together, but eide shoma mobarak. With that, I cede the rest of my time to the Greens senator.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eide shoma mobarak! From what I understand, Senator Roberts and One Nation have got us here in the chamber this afternoon to speak about a group called Operation 513. I am told they are in the habit of annoying people in the Queen Street Mall in Brisbane every Saturday night by yelling about a lot, specifically homosexuality. Understandably, it is pretty off-putting, so much so that they have been fined more than $10,000 by the Brisbane City Council, who say there have been complaints that include 'allegations of extreme harassment, with members of the group hurling abuse and insults at passers-by'.

I have spent a lot of today—since I said, 'Yes, I am happy to take part in this matter of public importance'—trying to figure out why this actually is a matter of public importance deserving of the time of the Senate. Why are we talking about a such a local topic in the federal parliament? I spent six years in local government, on Maribyrnong council. If you are concerned about this issue, and the actions of local government, take it up with your council officers, and take it up with your councillors. Why are we debating it here in the Senate today? Then I found that locals have described Operation 513 as a 'fundamentalist, Young-Earth creationist, oddly non-denominational bunch of kids who preach intolerance, anti-science, bigotry and hate speech'. Of course, then it fell into place: what better way to describe One Nation?

It is no coincidence that the group is homophobic, because it sums up the debate about marriage equality. We had an opinion poll come out today that showed that, even in the 12 most conservative electorates of the country, a majority of people want marriage equality. The majority of people in this country want all Australians to be able to marry the person they love. The majority of Australians want all Australians to be able to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with. Then you have the evangelists—no, not the average, everyday churchgoers, because we know that not just the majority of Australians, and not just the majority of people in the 12 conservative electorates of government MPs, but the majority of Australian Christians support marriage equality. But there is a vocal minority who is making life hell for the rest of us. They are trying to loudly impose their antiquated views on anyone who will listen, and on many who will not. It is not surprising that people get fed up with that. It is not surprising that people see them as a public nuisance. They are public nuisances trying to loudly impose their views—views that are only held by a very small minority of Australians—on us.

And then we have the situation with Minister Dutton, who seems to believe that it is okay for business leaders to support him on things he believes in. But, when it comes to them supporting marriage equality, he goes gallivanting around the country yelling like a self-appointed prophet that only he is allowed to have an opinion.

I was in Brisbane last week, and the people that I talked to had had enough. They do not want to be yelled at in the street. They do want to have commonsense, polite, respectful conversations. They are sick of a group of backward politicians stopping loving couples from marrying. They want to see us all 'get over it', and to allow our parliament to do its job—to have a free vote and legislate for marriage equality. They want marriage equality now. Those people I met in Brisbane last week are representative of the majority of Australians. They want us all to be able to come together respectfully and politely to recognise that this is a matter of love, it is a matter of equal rights, and it is a matter of having respect for everybody; and to allow for the differences that exist between people, and allow people to get married regardless of their gender identity, regardless of their sexuality, and to get on with the rest of their lives.

We do not need to have bunches of intolerant people yelling at people on the streets of Brisbane, and we certainly do not need to have that debate then imported into this Senate, as One Nation have done today.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought this debate was about freedom of speech, not about so-called marriage equality. All I can say to the previous speaker, Senator Rice, is that, if she had voted the right way a couple of months ago, this would have been a done deal by now. It would be all over and done with. The plebiscite would have been held. The Australian people would have made their decision and advised parliament what it was all about, but the Greens stopped it. The Greens and the Labor Party stopped it, and yet they have the hide to come in here and complain about it. Senator Rice, if you had supported this last year when it came before this chamber, this issue would not be being discussed at the moment. We would have had the plebiscite. The Australian people would have spoken, and whatever they said would now be the law of the land. So do not talk to me about marriage equality. It would have been dealt with by now had it not been for the Labor Party and the Greens.

Getting on to the subject of freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I walked in and heard Senator Rice using words like 'intolerant', 'hate speech', 'very small minority' and 'loudly imposing their views'. I thought, 'Hello! She is talking about the fake demonstration that was outside my office just last week.' An elected member of parliament, no less, and her paid staff were outside my office in Townsville with a few paid union organisers, yelling and carrying on in an intolerant way, interrupting people going about their normal course of life in Townsville, and rabbiting on about penalty rates—penalty rates which were determined not by me or the government but by the Fair Work Commission, a commission set up by the Australian Labor Party and Mr Bill Shorten, in particular, and asked by Mr Bill Shorten, when he was the minister, to look into this issue of penalty rates. They did that. I pay respect to this commission and I accept its decision, but it was a commission stacked with former union heavies, former union organisers and officials. That is who the commission was. Yet it has heard the evidence, come down and said that there should be some addressing of the penalty rates paid on Sunday. I suspect—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. Senator Dastyari?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am well aware that we normally allow a fair bit of scope and free range in these debates, but—through you, Chair—I would ask the speaker to try to at least bring it back to the issue at hand. I appreciate that we normally sway a bit, but I think this is perhaps getting a bit too far.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Dastyari. Senator Macdonald, you may resume your contribution.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I always know when my speech is successful, because Senator Dastyari or one of his mates in the Labor Party will always try to interrupt me. I am pleased about that because it shows that what I am saying is true and it is actually having an impact.

We are talking about freedom of speech. Can I tell you that I, quite frankly, do not care if Ms O'Toole, the illegitimate—I might say—member for Herbert, spends her time demonstrating—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, do you have a point of order?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to quote the exact standing order, but my understanding is that calling a member elected in the other house illegitimate would extend—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, given your many years of experience here—I am not sure that a person can be an illegitimate member of parliament. Either you are a member of parliament or you are not. So I would ask that you withdraw your reference to 'illegitimate'.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do so, Mr Acting Deputy President, but can I just explain. I will withdraw, as you ask. I am not referring to her personally. I am not suggesting what Senator Dastyari is suggesting I am saying about Ms O'Toole. Certainly that is not it. What I am saying is that she won the election by 37 votes, and, as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has already clearly determined, there were more than 100 votes in doubt in that particular election.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you take it to court?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, hang on. Wait for it.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't, did you?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wait for it, and I will tell you why. If you want to have this argument, let's go for it. Let's go for it.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. Please, contributions must address the chair. Interruptions are disorderly, and I ask those on my left to desist.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will get back to the freedom-of-speech issue, but there is evidence before the Electoral Commission that there were incidents that happened that prevented anyone from knowing—for example, so many cases of double voting that the candidates and the political parties were not even made aware of until well after the time for taking action in the Court of Disputed Returns. But more about that on another occasion. My reference to 'illegitimate' was as a member of parliament for that seat. That is not the right result. I called it an illegitimate result. I was certainly making no personal reflection on Ms O'Toole.

But back to the freedom of speech: Mr Acting Deputy President, quite frankly, I do not care if Ms O'Toole and her paid staff members campaign outside my office. I believe in freedom of speech. I would have thought that perhaps that is not what she and her staff are being paid for. She, I would have thought, would have had some more important work to do in Townsville, trying to help the hundreds and even thousands of young unemployed in that city rather than conducting a fake demonstration outside my office. What adds insult to injury, I might say, is that they always have these fake demonstrations when they know I am not in the town, when I am out somewhere else in Queensland representing my electors.

But I like free speech. If they want to have a demonstration outside my office, that is fine. I have not seen any of this in Townsville, but, if the Palaszczuk government is going to set the police on to preachers in the south-east of the state, then perhaps the Palaszczuk government should just think about these illegal, unlawful demonstrations outside the front of my office. I repeat: I do not give a damn about it. Nobody took much notice of them. Those who were interfered with as they walked up the street simply laughed at them. It was the CPSU—would you believe, Mr Acting Deputy President?—complaining about the reduction of penalty rates on a Sunday. Tell me which member of the CPSU works on a Sunday.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quarantine staff.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell me which one?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quarantine staff.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. There are not many of them. If they want to demonstrate, that is fine, but we need some consistency in Queensland. Perhaps we could ask Ms Palaszczuk: what is the difference between an unauthorised street rally in Townsville that just happened to be organised by the unions that keep her in business and these people trying to get across a message about their faith in the south-east of the state?

Australia is home to a diversity of faiths united by tolerance, mutual respect and a commitment to democratic traditions. I do not always agree with people who come and speak to me, try to speak to me or make public speeches about various parts of their faith or the religion they follow, but I will fight to death for them to be able to express their view, as long as they do not harass others who are going about their lawful activity. Where there is harassment—if that is the allegation—I agree that people are entitled to their right of movement, their right of going about their business, without impediment. But my understanding of the issue that Senator Roberts has brought before the Senate is that these are simply people of a faith who are standing on a street corner, standing in the mall, giving their view on their faith and trying to encourage people to think about their lives and their faith position, and that is fine by me. As long as they do not impede my progress, as long as they do not in any other way interfere with my freedom of movement, I have no objection to them.

In concluding, I ask the Palaszczuk government: tell me the difference between a demonstration in Townsville where people are impeded and a preacher or a group of preachers making a comment, an argument, a dissertation, on their faith in Brisbane. I think when we get down to trying to impede the free speech of people anywhere in my state of Queensland or anywhere else, we are approaching difficult and dangerous times. Accordingly, I really do think that the Queensland government, which is the subject of this particular debate today, should be consistent. You either stop everyone or you stop no-one. I go for stopping no-one. Providing they are not harassing anyone, people should be able to express themselves in whatever way they like and should not be impeded by police forces in Queensland apparently set off by the Queensland government. Ms Palaszczuk cannot have it both ways. It has to be either everyone stops or everyone is allowed to go. It should be that everyone is allowed to go within the reasons I have mentioned. I thank Senator Roberts for raising this important issue. It is the sort of important issue we need to discuss in this chamber.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not often I feel sorry for the LNP in this chamber, but when it comes to Senator Macdonald I actually do. We all know that the only reason Senator Macdonald was actually put back on the Senate ticket was that the LNP in Queensland were nervous about losing Herbert. The sad reality is that they put him back on the ticket—they did not want to put up with him but they put him back on the ticket because they were worried about the damage he would do—and they went on and lost Herbert anyway, and now they have to put up with him for another couple of years. So one really does have to feel sorry for the LNP having to put up with Senator Macdonald and the nonsense he goes on with in this chamber.

When it comes to the matter before us that was suggested by Senator Roberts, it speaks volumes that he was the only person from One Nation that actually spoke on this. They have since left the chamber. This is how important it was to them. When the news comes through that Senator Roberts has won the MPI we initially think of what damage he is going to do to the Barrier Reef and those that advocate for it. I know those supporters of the UN and the institutions it protects also get nervous because that is generally the target Senator Roberts wants to take. Today, he was off on a very different tangent, somehow trying to accuse the state government of interfering in a police matter. The reality is that the only government that interfered with the police in Queensland is the old Sir Joh government that he normally speaks so fondly of. That is what he is harking back to, and that is not something the current state government would be involved with. Obviously, his effort to conflate those two issues is just wrong. It is absolutely incorrect.

We also had Senator Macdonald go on and try to attack the current member for Herbert—who is doing an outstanding job standing up for her community—by trying to claim her election was illegitimate. What absolute nonsense! Any time that we see Senator Macdonald or those opposite trying to undermine her election to this parliament we will absolutely call them out on it. Those people who voted for her will also be disappointed in the efforts of the LNP. The member for Herbert won that election fair and square. The LNP did nothing whilst they were in government in Herbert and they suffered a consequence as a result. Ewen Jones was tossed out and now we have a hardworking member for Herbert who will absolutely stand up to this government every day of the week and is doing an outstanding job for the people of Townsville.

The way Senator Roberts spoke about this matter and indeed about the 513 group, he would have us think that they just go around extolling their virtues and talking about the work that they do. But actually look at some of the media reports of the work that these people have done when they have been charged with offences. I would point out this is a council that has made these complaints. This is from the Quest newspaper, a local newspaper in Brisbane, in which a council spokesperson said:

Complaints from the public and Queen Street Mall businesses include allegations of extreme harassment, with members of the group hurling abuse and insults at passers-by.

It does not quite sound as innocent as Senator Roberts has been making out.

This is not just something that has been happening in the Queen Street Mall in Brisbane. There are also reports of this happening on the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, on the Gold Coast as well. So there is a pattern of behaviour in South-East Queensland. This is another media report, going back a couple of years, from Sunshine Coast Daily:

The arrest of the men, street preachers with Operation 513, was a repeat of events last week when they were also charged with the same offence.

We also saw that in December 2015 a man was charged on the Gold Coast for contravening police directions to move on from the middle of Cavill Avenue in Surfer's Paradise during schoolies celebrations. This is a quote from a Gold Coast Bulletin article:

George Youssef, 33, was charged after police allege the man was "vilifying" homosexual people, causing anxiety and disrupting the trade of businesses on December 4 last year.

They also allege he told those who were intoxicated and celebrating the second week of schoolies they would "go to hell" for being drunk, Muslim, Buddhist and having sex outside wedlock.

These are the so-called innocent people Senator Roberts is seeking to defend here.

Yes, we understand freedom of speech, but we also need to put ourselves in the shoes of those police officers. As I mentioned in that story, we are talking about the second week of schoolies. This is a period when the Gold Coast police are large in number because they are dealing with an influx of people from all over the country to the Gold Coast to enjoy schoolies. They are under enormous pressure, dealing with that influx of people. Then you have this group in the mall, which is a real hub of activity when schoolies is on, sprouting this sort of stuff to young school leavers. Whilst Senator Roberts may be wishing to try to hamstring our police or blame the state government, this is something they have had to deal with. They have obviously had numerous instances of this with this group that they have been dealing with. The group has, so far, been refusing to acknowledge the police effort in this regard and have been thumbing their noses are them, and that is why it has gotten to the level it has. So, it is inconsistent of Senator Roberts to claim the innocence of these people when we look at the facts of these stories.

The other thing we need to look at is the hypocrisy of One Nation when it comes to these issues. Let's look at the women's march in January when Senator Hanson said:

It’s good that they were out and about and doing a bit of walking because it looked like a few of them needed to get a bit of sun and do a bit of exercise.

Don’t these clowns have anything else better to do with their time other than to hold sad, anti-democracy protests?

When discussing a rally in support of penalty rates earlier in month, Senator Hanson again said:

The real SHAME is these ratbag bullies couldn't think of anything original to shout.

So, if you align with One Nation's world view and you are having your say, you are okay, you are a champion of free speech. But, if you are exercising your speech on a matter that they do not agree with, you are sad, anti-democratic and a bully. There really is a lack of consistency in the argument from One Nation in this regard, and we will absolutely hold them to account in this chamber on that.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a representative of the people of Tasmania and of this planet, I wish to provide some empirical evidence to this Senate; but, before I do, I note that Senator Malcolm Roberts has fled the chamber, despite bringing on this discussion as a matter of urgency, a matter of public opinion. Presumably, he is so embarrassed by his sad and sorry contribution that he has decided to go back into his burrow rather than listen to other contributions to this discussion.

The empirical evidence that I wish to provide is about George Youssef, one of the so-called street preachers mentioned by Senator Roberts in his contribution. George Youssef has been charged by Queensland police. This is what the Queensland police have said about Mr Youssef. They said he was vilifying gay people. He was causing anxiety. He was disrupting the trade of businesses. This was on 4 December last year. Police have also said that he told those who were intoxicated and celebrating the second week of schoolies that they would 'go to hell for being drunk, for being Muslim, for being Buddhist and for having sex outside wedlock'. This is a guy who was standing there abusing schoolies and suggesting that they would go to hell for fornicating outside wedlock. The Australian language is a beautiful thing, and it adapts to grow alongside our community. That adaptation has given us a word for strange adults who lurk around schoolies' events. They are called 'toolies'. This toolie, Mr Youssef, according to police, was abusing young people with xenophobic, wowserish rubbish, and then he defied police when they told him to give it a rest. It sounds like he would fit in perfectly with One Nation. He sounds like a square peg in the square hole that is One Nation. I actually think he would make a fantastic candidate for One Nation in the upcoming Queensland election. In fact, it beggars belief that neither Senator Roberts nor Senator Hanson has approached Mr Youssef and begged him to run, because, as I said, it sounds like he would fit perfectly into the weird, whacky world of Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Pauline Hanson. It is absolutely fitting that Senator Roberts has come into this place, the Australian Senate, to defend a toolie who was shouting abuse at innocent passers-by. It is an absolutely neat embodiment of Senator Roberts's contribution to this country and to the political conversation in Australia.

Like Mr Youssef, One Nation is a political clown car. It is colourful. It provides an amazing spectacle, especially as it produces a seemingly endless stream of loud idiots riding in the back seat, while the rest of country is left only to wonder how they could fit so many fools into one small red car. But, as we saw in Western Australia recently, the clown car has caught fire, and what an awful but fantastic spectacle it is to see—One Nation crashing and burning. It is an absolute delight for those of us who care about environmental sustainability and for those of us who care about respect and tolerance for people, no matter what their cultural, racial or religious background is.

I want to put the strange case of Mr Youssef, the so-called street preacher, and the even stranger case of Senator Malcolm Roberts to one side and briefly talk about freedom of religion in this place. It has to be said that many people who appease One Nation and who are currently in the Liberal Party are the biggest threat to freedom of religion in Australia. They purport to stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion but, when you peel back the veneer, they are doing anything but that. One Nation wants to end Islamic immigration and basically make it impossible for people in Australia to practise the Islamic religion. Senator Roberts stood up today and called for an increase in racial profiling. One Nation wants to get rid of section 116 of the Australian Constitution, one of the few protections of freedom of religion that we have in this country. For Senator Roberts to come into this place and claim that he is defending freedom of religion when all he is doing, as he always does, is defending freedoms of people who are fruit loops is absolutely hypocritical.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First they came for the fruit loops.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleague and friend said: first they came for the fruit loops. We have got news for Senator Roberts. We have got news for Senator Hanson. We have got news for all the people in the Liberal Party and the National Party who want to see a weakening of protections against racial hate speech in this country. The Australian Greens have listened to what multicultural Australia has said to us, what they have told us and what they have asked of us. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with people from the Muslim communities of Australia, the Jewish communities of Australia, the Chinese communities of Australia, the Greek communities of Australia, the Italian communities of Australia, the Indian communities of Australia and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities of Australia, and we will do as they have asked us to do. They asked us very clearly during the inquiries that the Greens attended and participated in with regard to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act: 'Do not water down protections against racial hate speech in this country, and particularly don't water them down now. When you have a racist in the White House, and when you have an upsurge in support for racist political parties in Western democracies around the world, do not weaken the protections against racial hate speech in Australia.'

We will stand shoulder to shoulder with all of those people—those Australians who asked us to stay strong—no matter what their cultural background. We will stay strong on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. We will stay strong against racist political parties like One Nation. We will stay strong against allowing people to be hectored and vilified, no matter the basis for it. George Youseff was vilifying gay people, Muslims and Buddhists, and telling schoolies they are 'going to go to hell' simply for being drunk and having sex outside of wedlock.

It is very instructive that Senator Roberts is in here today defending that person, George Youseff, and, in effect, endorsing his comments. I reckon Senator Roberts ought to have a drink every now and again, chill out, loosen up, get with the program and understand the views of ordinary Australians, whom he claims to represent, but he has epically failed to do so since he was elected to this place.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.