Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, there are assertions made by the shadow minister which are incorrect. I again say that the discussion between the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Israeli ambassador on my instruction did occur after a series of devastating strikes that caused major civilian casualties, including near refugee camps and aid facilities, and after an escalation in rhetoric and action between Israel and Hezbollah. The assertions that the shadow foreign minister has made about what was said in that meeting are not correct. Whilst others may wish to make these discussions public—that's a matter for them—we have not.

What I would say to you is that what we say in the room is the same as that which we say outside, and that is that we do not want to see the conflict spreading to other parts of the region, including Lebanon. If this conflict spreads through the region, it will be devastating for thousands and thousands and thousands of civilians in Israel and Lebanon, as well as in the West Bank and Gaza, and for the thousands of Australians who are in Lebanon and in the region.

The senator and his party may think that it is a responsible thing to do to champion more conflict. We do not think so. We think the responsible thing to do is to champion peace. The other point I would make is that I and the others on this side act and speak on behalf of Australia and not for any other country. Australians, as I said, want peace, not more conflict and not more civilian deaths. What we see in this debate—and it has been going on for a while—is a desire from the Greens and from Senator Henderson and others on that side for absolutism. That's what they want: absolutism. And absolutism in politics and in conflict leads to more conflict. We want—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to pick a side.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection: 'You have to pick a side.' That says everything you want to know about what the coalition is seeking to do—and, if I may say, the Greens. You want this to be about sides, not about peace.

Honourable senators interjecting—

It's a game, isn't it? It is a game to you.

No-one here supports Hezbollah or Hamas. They are terrorist organisations.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, Senator Birmingham was heard in silence. It's a difficult issue. I ask that the minister be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection: 'You have to pick a side.' That says something, doesn't it? I am on the side of peace and a two-state solution that delivers peace and stability to the region, to Palestinians and Israelis alike. The absolutism from those opposite places no limit on civilian deaths. The absolutism from the Greens justifies the defacing of Mr Burns's office. That's where absolutism takes us. We on this side are for peace, not politics. We are for unity, not division—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not stand with the terrorists.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. The assertion that we stand with terrorists is a lie. You should withdraw it. You should withdraw it, and it demonstrates the disgraceful domestic politics that you are seeking to play with this. You are a disgrace. You are a disgrace.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, on a point of order.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Personal reflection—point of order. The minister should immediately withdraw the reflection that she made on me. I made a comment: 'We do not stand with terrorists.' That does not say anything other than our position, and she should withdraw it.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I would just ask you to withdraw that the senator lied.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard, 'You stand with terrorists.' That's what I heard. If it was not the case—

Would you mind? I'm responding—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a debate, Senator Henderson. Allow the minister to respond.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. No-one stands with terrorists in this place. No-one does. No-one does. Absolutism—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, is this a point of order?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's to clarify. The comment I made was, 'We do not stand with terrorists.' Senator Wong misheard me, and, on that basis, I would just ask her to withdraw the comment that she made.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, the minister has withdrawn. Please continue, Minister.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson is so keen to have a political fight on this catastrophic conflict that she doesn't even listen. Can everyone on that side stop playing domestic politics with this war? I think Australians want that. They don't want the conflict brought here. They don't want the conflict brought here by you, by the Greens or by the sorts of violent protests we have seen. They do not want that. The amendment I will move adds—I'll read this, and people can tell me which bit of this they disagree with. After the motion moved by Senator Birmingham, the amendment will add the following: 'notes that it is not in the interests of Israelis, Palestinians or any others in the Middle East to see the conflict broaden; calls on all parties to exercise restraint; supports efforts to press all parties to the conflict in Gaza to agree to the ceasefire proposal; and endorses the government's position to support recognition of the state of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace'.

I think that actually represents where the majority of Australians are. It represents what people are seeking. The problem is that this will probably be voted down because the Greens cannot bear to vote for something that says 'two-state' and those opposite cannot bear to vote for something that says 'recognition'. That is the absolutism on display here today and in this debate constantly. It is irresponsible and it is wrong. The only party that is demonstrating consistency and maturity on this is the Australian Labor Party. I appreciate that at times it is hard, because it is easy to be absolutist. It is easy to speak to people's fear. It is easy to promote division. But that is not Labor's way, and we will not do that. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Senate:

(a) notes that it is not in the interests of Israelis, Palestinians or any others in the Middle East to see the conflict broaden;

(b) calls on all parties to exercise restraint;

(c) supports efforts to press all parties to the conflict in Gaza to agree to the ceasefire proposal; and

(d) endorses the Government's position to support the recognition of the State of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace".

I also move:

That the question be now put.

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

On a point of order, I had foreshadowed an amendment to the government amendment, and I seek clarity as to whether the minister's motion will prevent such an amendment being moved.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be up to the Senate to decide whether the question is put. If the Senate decides that the question will be put, then you will be denied the opportunity to put a further amendment.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we have not closed the debate, the debate continues.

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

I move the amendment to the government amendment as foreshadowed in my speech and circulated in the chamber:

That the government amendment be amended as follows:

At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met:

i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders."

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Cadell is seeking the call, so I'm going to give him the call.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—In that last vote, there was a miscount. Someone who was paired came in and voted. Can we recommit that last vote?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, certainly. I think, because there's been a bit of confusion, we'll let the bells ring until they're done, and then I will recommit that previous vote, which is Senator Wong's motion.

Whilst the bells were ringing, Senator Cadell stood and said that in that first division, which was on the closure motion moved by Senator Wong, someone who was paired inadvertently came in and was accidentally counted. We are now recommitting the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong. The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

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

I move again the amendment to the government amendment, as circulated in the chamber and as foreshadowed in my remarks:

That the government amendment be amended as follows:

At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met:

i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders."

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I have a point of order. The last vote was tied, and there was an incorrect count on the opposition side. We now have an additional senator, Senator Lambie, and Senator Pocock. It cannot be, therefore, that the vote is again tied, unless someone else has left. It's not arithmetically possible.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was in the hands of the tellers. They both checked their numbers. I'm in the hands of the chamber, but I would suggest that we give the tellers, Senator Urquhart and Senator Cadell, a moment to check their pairing sheets. Senator McKim?

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

In concurrence with that, President, I wish to make a short contribution on the question before the chair, which might assist in allowing the tellers to consult over the matter that Senator Wong has raised.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure.

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

Do I have the call?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace and we call for all parties to exercise restraint. There is the horrific potential—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I thought you were assisting us to resolve the matter.

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

I was.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you're not, because you're going into debate. Senator Urquhart is now, I think, going to explain what happened.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Thank you, President. It was my error. I had Senator Wong in, but she was out, and she wasn't on my pair sheet. I would therefore ask that the vote be recommitted.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart has asked that the vote be recommitted. It is the convention of the Senate that votes are recommitted. Is leave granted to recommit?

Leave granted.

The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

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

As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace and for all parties to exercise restraint—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a moment, Senator McKim.

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

There's no gag motion.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I have Senator Birmingham on a point of order.

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

Point of order, President. The question had been put by Senator Wong.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, Senator McKim is in order because the debate has not been closed. Senator McKim?

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

As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace, and for all parties to exercise restraint. There is the horrific potential that the State of Israel is about to launch an invasion of Lebanon. If this happens, it will be a humanitarian disaster for the people of Lebanon, just as the war in Gaza has been a humanitarian disaster for the people of Gaza. Just as happened last time this parliament voted to give the State of Israel political cover for its invasion of Gaza, the opposition is now seeking the same for the potential invasion of Lebanon. The Australian Greens will not be a party to this.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that Senator Birmingham's motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless Senator Birmingham strongly desires us to continue with question time, I would ask that further questions be placed on notice.