Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I committed to take from the chamber some objections to language in part of the chamber's procedures yesterday, with respect to the national apology. I have reviewed the language that was objected to and, after detailed consideration, including consideration with Senate officials, my determination is that there was not a breach of standing orders in that language. That said, that does not in any way say that the language was appropriate, because the standing orders set the outer limits of what we are supposed to say and how we are supposed to act in this chamber. I will repeat a plea I have made on numerous other occasions: if we seek to maintain courtesies towards others and seek to avoid giving offence, then the debate in this chamber will be much more reflective of our higher aspirations and indeed the aspirations of those who send us here. The rules are the outer limit. They are not an aspiration for us to run around the edge of. So can I ask senators again that, particularly when we are dealing with matters about which there are very strong feelings held, we actually seek to avoid giving offence rather than pick at issues that we know will provoke strong feelings in others who may have very different perspectives, based on very different life experiences. I thank senators.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I wish to make a short comment on workplace safety in this chamber and the fact that I've endured racism since I started my role as a senator for Victoria. There have been numerous comments coming from numerous people, but obviously there is one who refuses to stop the racism that is entrenched in that person's being. I need to do my job as a senator for Victoria. I am a woman. I am a mother. I am a grandmother. I am a sister, aunty, cousin—you name it. A lot of people are watching this place and they are seeing their parliament divided through racism. If we are going to represent the people in this country at the highest level, then we also have to ensure that racism isn't part of this chamber's business and we all have to call that out. It is a responsibility of everybody. So, please, can we leave racism out the door? I'm happy to talk to people if they want, even—what's her name? I just can't, because racism is an illness and it makes people sick. My child just started year 7 last year and she experienced her first bit of racism. My five-year-old granddaughter is experiencing her first bit of racism. When are we going to unite this country and stamp out not just systemic racism but the racist comments that certain people are making in my workplace? This is a workplace, and I have a right to feel safe in my workplace.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—First, can I thank you for the consideration you took with this matter, Mr President. I thank you for your comments, which, from memory, reprise comments you made after Senator Anning's unfortunate first speech, or something like that, where you did remind us that the standing orders set the outer limits of appropriateness. I would endorse those comments, and the Labor Party supports your comments and your ruling.

I would, however, make this point. This is a contest of ideas and at times a pretty hard political combat, but we ought, I think, to try to ensure that we remain respectful of the institution that we are part of and the positions that we occupy. As I said, I think, in Senator Cormann's valedictory, there is a no-go zone. There are rules of contained debate. There's a contained conflict. I think we should have outside of the zone of conflict personal reflections, particularly those that go to people's race. Senator Hanson yesterday did make some personal comments, including describing Senator Thorpe—I apologise that I'm going to repeat it, but I'm making a point—as a 'self-styled Aboriginal elite'. I think those sorts of comments are divisive and they are hurtful, and they really have no place in a debate which is about a very clear difference of views. I understand and respect Senator Thorpe's response to this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting in this place that I'm not prepared to have an argument and have a debate, but we all should observe some boundaries around that. We can only do that if all of us, or as many of us as possible, seek to observe those boundaries.

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

by leave—I would like to make a comment that our party abhors racism, and I want to put that on the record. We also believe in data and being objective, because there is another thing that is not quite as bad as racism but it is nasty, and that is to accuse someone falsely of racism. So I would suggest that anybody in this chamber, if they want to maintain the decorum and the prestige and the status of this house and the whole parliament, should put forward documented evidence of racism. That is the least we should expect from anyone who's making such an accusation.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr President, firstly, thank you for your ruling, the leadership that you provide in this place and, in providing that leadership, the words that you have reminded senators of again and again of in terms of, where necessary, reflecting upon their conduct and being mindful that their conduct can undermine confidence in this place and, in doing so, undermine the achievement of the very policy outcomes that people come here seeking to secure.

Ours is a robust parliamentary democracy, as Senator Wong acknowledged. We fight fiercely for our ideas, our principles, our values, our policies—as we should. We do so at some points of the chamber from greater extremes than at other points of the chamber, but those extremes should not inflame in ways that undermine the standing of this place. I urge everybody to make sure that they take up their fight for their principles, their values, their policies and their positions as passionately as they possibly can but leave reflections upon one another at the door and respect each other. All 76 of us were elected by the people of our states and territories. We were chosen by fellow Australians to serve in this place, and we need to respect that whilst seeking to persuade—because the other ongoing element of this parliamentary chamber is that nothing is achieved here without persuasion, without working with other parties to achieve a majority to get things done.

Respect and the power of persuasion from your different positions are crucial elements. There's no place for racism, there's no place for vitriol, there's no place for abuse, there's no place for sexism and there's no place for anything that undermines the position of individuals going about their work, be it here or in any other workplace. But here we are meant to set a standard and, in setting that standard, we ought to start with how we conduct debates between one another. We can argue passionately and persuasively but keep it to the issues.