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

Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 878 which relates to the policy of US President Trump to forcibly separate families of people seeking asylum in the US.

The reason I've sought to suspend so much of the standing orders that would prevent me from having this motion debated and voted on today is the serial inconsistency of the government in dealing with foreign policy motions. Remember, last week, the government granted formality, or did not deny formality, to Senator Bernardi's motion giving President Trump a pat on the back over his actions on the Korean peninsula. I note that Senator Bernardi's motion:

(b) congratulates President Trump for:

(i) achieving a diplomatic breakthrough his predecessors could not achieve,

(ii) advancing the de-escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula, and

(iii) advancing the cause of denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

To call those claims 'highly contestable' would be an absolute understatement! Yet today we find that the government won't allow a motion which seeks to condemn the Trump administration for its disgraceful actions in ripping children away from their families as they try to seek asylum in the US. They're doing so by claiming that the Australian Greens' motion is a complex foreign policy matter. If Korea is a simple foreign policy matter, I would hate to see a complex foreign policy matter!

But I think everyone in this chamber knows exactly what's going on here. Senator Bernardi's motion was complimenting US President Donald Trump. My motion is criticising US President Donald Trump. Just drop the charade and admit it: you're not going to allow debate and a vote on a motion that is critical of US President Donald Trump, but you're very happy to roll out the red carpet for a motion that is complimentary of US President Donald Trump. Just drop the charade, Senator McGrath, admit what you're doing here and stop trying to hide behind a veil of claiming that a particular motion deals with a complex foreign policy matter. Ripping children away from their families, acting like fascists and throwing them into cages is not a complex matter; it's highly simple. It's simply disgusting; that's what it is. It's simply disgusting. It should be a very simple question of right or wrong around ripping children away from their families when they try to seek asylum.

Senator McAllister interjecting—

Unfortunately, what you've got here is a government that's lost its way and lost its conscience. In fact, both major parties, including the party that Senator McAllister represents, have lost their conscience. They cannot speak with any authority on the issue of ripping children away from their families and throwing them into detention, because the Labor Party invented indefinite detention in this country. Every single man, woman and child currently on Nauru who sought asylum in Australia, the Labor Party put them there. The Labor Party put every man on Manus Island in Australia's prison for exiles on Manus Island, and they continue to support the policies, along with the Liberal Party, that have inspired the likes of Donald Trump and other far-right regimes around the world. Donald Trump admitted last week that he looked at what Australia was doing—invented by the Labor Party—before he came up with his appalling policy of ripping children away from their families.

I won't even have time to go to the situation in Biloela, where a family of four were woken in their beds in the dead of night—in the pre-dawn hours—while Border Force people ripped the children and their parents away from their home, away from the community that loves them and is trying to support them. It's only the desperate actions of legal counsel on behalf of refugee advocates that, today, have stopped that whole family from being deported.

Yes, there is outrage in the US at the President's suggestion that he will start deporting people seeking asylum without trial and without due process, but the Liberals and the Labor Party have been doing this for years in Australia! Where do they think he got the idea? He got it right here. Last January, President Trump told Prime Minister Turnbull, 'You're worse than I am.' He's right about that.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In line with the longstanding view of successive governments, given that formal motions cannot be debated or amended, they should not deal with complex and contested foreign policy matters. A foreign policy motion is likely to be complex and contested where the motion is insulting or demeaning; contain assertions of fact that are unverifiable; has the potential to damage Australia's relations with other nations; or, in some other way, is contrary to Australia's national interests. The Senate should not consider and vote on foreign policy motions of this kind without the ability to have a full debate, given they involve serious and substantial issues.

I encourage the Greens to liaise with Minister Bishop's office, as they have done in relation to other notices of motion that are on the Notice Paper concerning foreign policy matters. Minister Bishop's office is very consultative in trying to assist all members of the Senate in relation to the motions that appear before us. The government do not like having to deny formality on such motions, but we will continue to do so as the Greens continue to play base politics in relation to the abuse of the notice of motion procedure. You are fully aware—through you, Madam Deputy President—that notices of motion will be denied formality where they deal with contested foreign policy matters. In relation to the notice that is before us today, it clearly deals with a complex and contested foreign policy matter.

I'm not going to be lectured, and no member of the coalition is going to be lectured, by the Greens in relation to some of the comments that have come from Senator McKim concerning the treatment of children, because it was under the previous Labor-Greens government where children died at sea. Where were the tears from the Greens then? Because that happened at sea and away from the glare of television cameras, there was no outrage from the Greens. There was no outrage from the Greens for those children who died at sea. There was no outrage from the Greens for all those hundreds of people who died at sea. There was no outrage whatsoever. What you heard then was silence. So this side, the conservative side of politics, will certainly not be lectured by the Greens when it comes to the treatment of children in detention centres. We're certainly not going to be lectured by you in relation to what a sovereign foreign government is doing to the control of its own borders.

The subtext here is that the Greens are completely obsessed by President Trump, because President Trump is actually doing what he said he was going to do. He is controlling the borders. He is making sure he is delivering on the promises that he took to the American election a few years ago. Whether it is President Trump dealing with North Korea, whether it is President Trump bringing forward tax cuts, whether it is tax cuts that are helping push along the American economy or whether it's actually cutting regulation—President Trump is cutting regulation—the Greens are completely obsessed by President Trump. They've got blinkers on. You just have to say the word 'Trump' and they all start twitching and their eyes start blinking in a crazy-like fashion. It is not the position of this Senate to lecture a sovereign foreign government when there are contested and complex foreign affairs matters.

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

Like Korea, for example.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go! You want to talk about what President Trump is doing. President Trump is delivering on his domestic agenda and his foreign agenda. The American people voted for President Trump, and it's wrong of the Greens to continue to harp on as they do. This latte set from Balmain have no experience of the real world. They talk about places like Biloela—you wouldn't even know where Biloela is, mate. Have you ever been to Biloela?

This is the problem with the Greens. They govern from textbooks. They govern from the hypocrisy of their own party room. The Greens' party room is where for six years they were an accomplice to Labor's failure to control our borders. What President Trump is doing is a decision for him and is a contested foreign affairs matter. The Senate should not be dealing with this as a notice of motion.

Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this motion to suspend standing orders. Senator McKim brought up a number of points as to why we should not oppose this motion and why this motion should go ahead. He generally spoke of the US immigration policy and he mentioned Korea. He also mentioned Biloela, and he mentioned offshore processing on a number of occasions. It is well known in this place that contested foreign policy motions should not be debated in this way, that we should deny formality and that this is just an abuse of the process. We should not vote on this motion but we should pick up on certain points that Senator McKim has spoken about.

The first point that Senator McKim spoke about was in relation to President Trump, who has revoked his own view, his own law, that separated children. President Trump and his wife have admitted that this is no longer an issue and that the law is being changed at the moment. What President Trump has done is apply democratic rules—apply the democratic process, which he has been elected to do—to control the US borders. This is a domestic agenda which is in fact a complex foreign policy motion. Senator McKim referred to the hard line that President Trump has taken. Well, President Trump is merely applying laws. He's come out and said that he is going to apply the law which requires that people who enter the US nation illegally—not refugees; he said people who enter the US nation illegally—at other than approved border crossing points be returned immediately to their country of origin, which in most of the cases will be Mexico.

If you look around the world, you will see that this is not a unique view. Senator McKim certainly knows that this is a policy that has been applied and has resulted in lives being saved. The previous policy caused an extraordinary loss of life—1,200 people died at sea. This policy has now been applied across the world. If we look at what has happened in the Mediterranean, we can see the impact on life and death of the ridiculous migration policies of the EU. We're now seeing Hungary, Austria, Italy and Germany entirely re-evaluating—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Yes, like Germany and Italy. We're now seeing Hungary, Austria, Italy and Germany entirely re-evaluating their entire migration laws. This is very, very important because we recently saw in the Mediterranean a boat with 600 people turned away from Italy when it should have taken those people to the closest port, which was Tripoli; that is international law and that's where they should have gone back to. Spain is very happy to accept those people. Spain has accepted those people. But what is Spain going to do when it gets the same number of people as Italy has got—600,000 people entering that country as migrants?

We saw what occurred under the Labor-Greens government during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, and the coalition government was required to yet again fix the appalling Greens-Labor policies that created those problems. I was honoured to be the co-author of Operation Sovereign Borders. How could we forget the 1,200 people who died and the abuse of our laws in absolutely every scenario? Of course, we didn't start offshore processing. Prime Minister Gillard and Prime Minister Rudd started offshore processing. But who actually stood up and finally moved children out of detention? We did. We closed the 17 detention centres in Australia. (Time expired)

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the suspension of standing orders. Nothing in this debate that comes from the conservative side of the chamber surprises me anymore. They have decided to commit themselves to a position on issues of humanitarianism and conscience that commits them to a very dark path indeed—but, on this side of the chamber, the Labor Party!

As somebody who used to consider themselves a Labor supporter, who comes from a proudly Labor family that in the UK would vote nothing but Labour, I say to the Labor Party: how disappointing moments like this are that we have fallen so far, that both sides of politics are now so committed to this blood pact on refugees, to this abdication of humanitarian leadership from a nation that played such a leading role in the creation of the Refugee Convention in 1951, that you cannot even bring yourselves to vote for a motion condemning a demagogue, a Neo-Fascist such as Donald Trump. You can't bring yourself to condemn the man for separating 2,700 children from their families because you dare not put your foot across the line; you dare not come close to advocating the humanitarian response that I know some of you want to support and that I goddamn well know that many of your supporters in WA, from Rockingham to Fremantle and from Denmark to Kalgoorlie, want you to support. I've done polling booths with them. I've spoken with them. I've heard the note of disappointment in their voices as they talk to me about their futile efforts to get your party to come back on board with humanity. They are so tired of fighting this issue and fighting the party.

At moments like this I am not surprised. We are seeing a nation we consider to be one of our foremost global allies acting in a way that is nothing less than repugnant, implementing policies which are ripping families apart—and where did he get the idea? Where did this ignorant buffoon get the idea? Australia. Australia, under the Labor Party. Shame! Shame on you all!

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

Deputy President, on a point of order: I would ask if you could get some advice as to whether the term 'goddamn' is actually a profanity or parliamentary, because the senator made reference to it.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator McGrath, on the same matter?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same matter: I believe the senator called President Trump 'an ignorant buffoon'. I also think that is not appropriate for the Senate chamber. So, if you're seeking counsel, I would add that to the list.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McGrath. I just remind senators to be mindful that we need to act in a way that's respectful. Some senators will or could take offence at blasphemous language, but it's not against the standing orders, nor are comments about the President—the President of the US, I should say, not our President. Senator Marshall.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. Maybe someone can show me a resolution of the Senate that has alleviated poverty somewhere or created world peace somewhere—

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

It's coming up!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'It's coming up,' says Senator Bernardi. This debate was really about: should formality be denied to resolutions that are put up to the Senate which go to complex foreign policy matters without any debate? That is a problem. President Trump scares the bejesus out of me, but I don't think it's right to insult presidents. I don't think it's right to stand here in the Australian Senate without any debate and pass judgement on what other countries are doing. I think that is the height of all arrogance and discourtesy. I think it's inappropriate. The Greens seem to have taken offence to a foreign policy matter which probably is complex—I must say, I didn't read it last week when it was up—but they had every opportunity to deny formality. They had every opportunity to do so, if they thought it was complex, but they want the government to do it. Well, if it got through there, that's inappropriate, but that was completely in their control. But they didn't do it, so today they could have this stunt. They could get up, attack everyone and show how mighty and how just they are and how everybody else isn't, because they work at apparently a higher moral level and judgemental standard than everybody else. Quite frankly, I get a little bit sick of the indignation that they have, as though they have some moral authority which no-one else has.

I think the position that the Senate takes is the correct position, on the whole: complex foreign policy resolutions are denied formality. A resolution isn't simply voted on, yes or no, without debate. I think that's a stupid thing for the Senate to do, and, if it does it from time to time, any senator ought to deny formality and not sulk about it and complain.

I actually support the government's position on this. I support it because it's the same position the opposition has. It's a position we had when we were in government and we continue to support it. It is not appropriate for those sorts of resolutions to be simply voted up or voted down without any discussion about them whatsoever. If you want to have a debate about the impact of foreign policy on Australia, let's have a debate so it can be put in context and different views can be tested and challenged across the chamber. Let's do that. Let's not hide behind sneaky resolutions that are put in really just to wedge people. Generally, that's all we ever get from the Greens. In this part of the business of the Senate, motions are put up to try to wedge one party against another politically, or to try to do what Senator Steele-John said: try to wedge off the Labor Party supporters that he knows are so upset with us, but apparently he's been unable to recruit them. They're so upset with us that it somehow creates some difficulty for us. Quite frankly, it's a nonsense. I get sick of it. I'm sure most other senators get sick of it too. If you want to deny formality, do so.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in denial of this motion. I find myself in thunderous agreement with Senator Marshall's comments. For the Greens to claim that this is not a complex foreign policy issue that deserves significant debate, I find almost incredulous because, at the beginning of their motion, they talk about President Trump and United State government policy. If that is not a foreign policy issue, I don't know what is. I too agree with Senator Marshall. For four years, I have been listening to this moral, pious and sanctimonious lecturing from the Greens as though they have the—

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Conscience and conviction!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We provided you the courtesy of listening in silence. I think the Greens, on their motion, could have the courtesy to listen to those on either side, because this is a serious issue. If you say that it's only the Greens who have compassion in this world, let me tell you, Senator Steele-John, that when you have seen the impact of not only terrorism but also serious and organised crime, when you have seen what dead bodies look like—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, resume your seat. I remind you to direct your comments to the chair.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know what compassion is and I know what compassion is to me. Compassion is not opening our borders and putting people smugglers back in business. In 2001, I saw firsthand the consequences of the immorality and the evilness of people smugglers and what they do and how they treat people. They have no respect for human life. Humans and children are not commodities. For the Greens to suggest that they have the upper hand or that they are the only ones who have any compassion or morality in this chamber is simply wrong. Compassion is keeping control of our borders, putting people smugglers out of business and not having our Defence personnel fish 1,200 bodies out of the water.

Madam Deputy President Lines, if you were to show any of my colleagues in the Greens what the consequences of their policies would be, they would change their minds. Twelve hundred people drowning, including children, is not compassion. Compassion is keeping control of our borders, taking control of who we let in. By doing that, by stopping the boats and by closing down the detention centres, we now have an extra 3,000 humanitarian visa applications approved here. These are people who deserve to be here in Australia. These are the most needy, and we keep control of our borders. So, please, spare all of us in this chamber your pious sermonising, lecturing and demonisation.

I hate to tell my colleagues in the Greens this, but there are bad people in this world and they exploit compassion. We saw that when the borders were reopened a few years ago. They exploited that. They sell the promise of coming here to Australia. People die; people never get here. It is wrong, it is cruel and it is evil, and we need to keep control of our borders. So, please, no more piety, no more 'we're the only ones with compassion in this world'. You are not. You might have a very different idea of what compassion looks like, but when you have seen the consequences of terrorism, as I have, and the consequences of—

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no connection.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely there is. Quite often, serious and organised crime, criminal business models and terrorist business models are the same thing.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who gives them the fuel?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If those opposite don't understand that people will exploit other people—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, please resume your seat. Senators have the right to be heard in silence. Please allow Senator Reynolds to finish her contribution in silence.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection from the Greens. We have people in this chamber who don't understand that there are people—terrorists or serious and organised criminals—who don't respect human life and that, when we show compassion, they exploit it. If you do not understand that there is a link between that psychology and behaviour and their implications on all Australians, I am truly alarmed. Not only are you pious, you are also terribly ignorant of what happens in the world. Yes, we do have to balance strength with compassion. But compassion is to be provided to those who need it—for example, those on humanitarian visas. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.