Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 8 October 2024, from Senator Chandler:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to act in response to the Islamic Republic of Iran's widespread sponsoring of terrorism, promotion of antisemitism, and oppression of its people by listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation and declaring the current Iranian Ambassador to Australia persona non grata."

Is the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to act in response to the Islamic Republic of Iran's widespread sponsoring of terrorism, promotion of antisemitism, and oppression of its people by listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation and declaring the current Iranian Ambassador to Australia persona non grata.

Yesterday, we marked one year since the horrific October 7 terrorist attacks in which Hamas terrorists, funded and supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran, slaughtered more than 1,200 innocent civilians in Israel in cold blood. The vast majority of Australians were shocked and appalled by this barbaric mass murder and stood with the people of Israel in their grief and mourning, but the unfortunate reality is that there was a minority in this country who welcomed and celebrated 7 October.

Many of us recognised on that very first day following the October 7 attacks that there was an attempt underway, both in Australia and around the world, to cast this terrorist action as a legitimate resistance, to justify hatred of Jewish people as anti-Zionism and to absolve Hamas and other terrorist groups of blame by painting Israel as the aggressor. There is no question—and there has never been any question—that the Islamic Republic of Iran regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are front and centre in coordinating, funding, planning and supporting the terrorism which its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis perpetrate not only against Israel but against innocent civilians right across the Middle East.

The abhorrent behaviour of the IRI regime is nothing new. More than 18 months ago, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which I chair, handed down a report making 12 recommendations to hold the IRI regime accountable for its appalling human rights abuses, its promotion of terrorism and its unlawful intimidation, monitoring and harassment of Australians. The Albanese government not only took eight months to even respond to that report but, when it did, refused to accept 10 of the 12 recommendations.

Let's be very clear: we know that the IRI regime supports and funds terrorism; we know the IRI regime deliberately promotes antisemitism to grow support for attacks against Israel and to recruit for its proxies; we know the regime and its terror proxies deliberately spend the lives of innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon as part of its strategy to attack Israel; and we know that the regime has agents working in this country to target its own critics.

There is only one message that Australia should be sending to a foreign regime which undertakes these actions, and that is that we do not tolerate any support for terrorism or terrorists, and we do not tolerate any promotion of vile, dangerous antisemitism. Answer this question. What sends a stronger message that we have zero tolerance for terrorism: listing the IRGC as a terror organisation or briefing the media that the government doesn't want to list the IRGC as a terror organisation in case that reduces its dialogue with the regime? What sends a stronger message that we do not tolerate antisemitism and the praising of terrorists than expelling the Iranian ambassador, who has repeatedly done so and has pointedly ignored the requests from DFAT officials to stop doing it?

The dangerous message that the Albanese government has sent to the regime is that it won't list the IRGC as terrorists, no matter how many terrorist attacks they plan and carry out, and it won't expel the Iranian ambassador, no matter how blatantly he seeks to foster support for terrorism and promote antisemitism in our community. Instead, we see once again this weak government respond to unacceptable behaviour from the Iranian ambassador by delegating a DFAT official to have a discussion with him.

This is a regime which wants to be able to behave as it pleases and deter other countries from standing up to it by taking action. Calling in the ambassador for a polite chat with an official is not a response which sends a message to the regime. It is a response which the Australian government knows full well the regime can live with and can respond to in kind by calling in our ambassador, as it did this week in Tehran. That's why DFAT has had more than 20 of these conversations with Iranian officials over the last two years, and it has had precisely zero impact on curtailing the regime and the ambassador's behaviour.

We hear constantly from the government the benefits of its dialogue with the Iranian regime, but it is clear to everyone paying attention that this dialogue is achieving nothing to rein in the regime's behaviour. Even worse, it is being used as leverage by this regime to prevent the Albanese government from taking action to list the IRGC and expel the Iranian ambassador.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's not in a position to support this urgency motion, and Senator Chandler could not be more wrong. The opposition is well aware of the interest that the Australian government is seeking to manage in its diplomatic relationship with Iran. We maintain diplomatic relations with Iran because it's in Australia's national interest to do so, and it is in the interests of our closest strategic partners.

I say that in an opaque way because that's as much as can be asserted here. But Senator Chandler knows all this, because it's not just Senator Birmingham and Senator Paterson who have been briefed by the government in relation to these issues. We paid Senator Chandler herself the respect of briefing her directly. She knows what the position is, yet she continues with the most grossly irresponsible approach on these questions. I suspect this is because it means a fleeting amount of attention and a fleeting amount of political advantage for her. She knows all these questions because she has been briefed. The fact that she continues in this vein is contemptible. For somebody who seeks future leadership roles in foreign affairs and geostrategic affairs to continue with this line of argument while they have been briefed is utterly irresponsible.

There is a letter from the foreign minister to the shadow minister for foreign affairs, urging the opposition to not proceed today with this motion. Why? It is because politicking—crass, base partisan politics—around this question undermines the Australian national interest. Yet Senator Paterson, again, enables the far right in the Liberal and National parties, who are utterly reckless about the national interest, to continue with this proposition. Fine.

We all agree with some of the propositions that Senator Chandler has advanced. I don't think anybody across the chamber would disagree that Iran plays a profoundly destabilising role—that's the kindest way of putting it—in the region. But there is a set of reasons that go to Australia's security and the security of our partners, and it is utterly reckless for Senator Chandler to continue with this. Lives are in the balance. The Australian government's approach on these questions is mobilised by the national interest proposition, not pandering to some section of the community, which has characterised 100 per cent of the Liberal and National parties' approach on these questions.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come to order. Senator Chandler.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that senators direct their comments through you, as I did.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Chandler. Senator Ayres, please direct your comments through the acting deputy president.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the Senate chamber is being asked to deal with here is not the question about the shameful behaviour of the dictatorship in Iran. It is really being asked to deal with the question of the national interest versus the partisan interest, and what qualifies or disqualifies an alternative party of government from having that role is: are you prepared to put the national interest ahead of the partisan interest?

If we're going to go to the issue of performance, the previous government had nine years to take a hard line about these questions. There was not one sanction and not one piece of meaningful action. Iran was appointed to the Human Rights Committee, and there was no noise from the previous government. It is all just bluster and hot air, and it's hot air that undermines the Australian national interest almost every time they open their mouths on a foreign policy question.

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

Less than a month ago we were here in the Senate marking the two-year anniversary of the murder of Mahsa Jina Amini at the hands of the Iranian regime. I spoke about the violence and the terror that the people of Iran are subject to and the staggering number of sham trials and state executions conducted by the Iranian regime against their own people. Women in Iran are subject to particularly horrendous oppression and violence. This treatment drove the Women, Life, Freedom movement, which was not mentioned once in the opposition's motion. You can't talk about the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime without talking about the oppression of women or discrimination against the Kurds or suppression of political protest. Yet today the opposition, very clearly, are not interested in talking about the very real crimes of the Iranian regime. They are interested in amplifying the war drums being beaten in certain parts of the media. We oppose in the strongest possible terms any illegal retaliation by the State of Israel on Iran, as we oppose any such further action by Iran on Israel. All parties involved must de-escalate.

The Australian Greens have been consistent in our calls for the Australian government to listen to the Iranian community and place pressure on the regime, including listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. We absolutely condemn the Iranian regime, but we will not be party to the blatant warmongering that is implicit in this motion. I therefore seek leave to amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber in my name.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

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

Well, there you have it. We have sought to amend this motion to be something that we were able to support. Unfortunately, that leave has not been granted. Because of this, we will be abstaining on this motion. I reiterate the deep respect that I and the Australian Greens have for those in the Iranian prisons who are putting their lives on the line for change in Iran. We are in solidarity with these brave protesters and will continue to work with the movement here in Australia and to call out the human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Iranian regime.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, with respect to the vile actions of the Iranian regime and, in particular, the glaring omission made by Australia in continuing not to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, I'd like to give heartfelt thanks to Senator Chandler for consistently prosecuting these issues in this place.

Senator Ayres talked about the national interest. I suggest that he come to my home state of Queensland and talk to the Iranian diaspora about the national interest. They're proud Australians, and I'll tell you what their view of the national interest is: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. It supports Hamas. It supports Hezbollah. It supports terrorist activity all over the world. Yet the Australian government continues to fail to register the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. The United States has registered it as a terrorist organisation. Canada has registered it as a terrorist organisation. Lithuania has registered it as a terrorist organisation. Why? Because it is a terrorist organisation.

We hear this limp excuse that, because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is so closely connected to the Iranian regime, there is some issue in the law which prevents it from being listed as a terrorist organisation. I have risen repeatedly in this place to say: 'If there is a technical legal reason, come and work with us and we will solve that reason, because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be registered as a terrorist organisation.' That's the first point.

This is the second point. Senator Ayres, if you're listening to this, come back into this place and tell me how it is in the national interest for Australia to continue to accept the presence in this country of a diplomatic official—I don't care what country they're from—who continues to spew hatred and vile comments whilst being given the diplomatic immunity attached to being in this country. How is it possibly in Australia's national interest for a diplomat to come into this country and spew out vile hatred, especially at this of all times? How is that in our national interest?

Surely it is in Australia's national interest to draw a line and say 'enough'. How many times does a diplomatic official from any country have to be dragged in and counselled with respect to the fact that they should not be engaging in hate speech and should not be making odious, vile comments before we say that that official is persona non grata—a person not acceptable to be in this country or to represent the interests of any foreign nation? How many times, Senator Ayres, will you accept that official coming in and making vile, hate-driven comments before you say it's not in the national interest for that diplomat to be in this country? Answer that question for me, Senator Ayres. I'm baffled by your contribution to the debate in regard to that.

As for the Greens—and this isn't typical, I should say—they propose an amendment to the motion that would change it from, 'The need for the Albanese government to act in response to the Islamic Republic of Iran's widespread sponsoring of terrorism,' to, 'The need for the Albanese government to urgently consider further actions.' There's no further consideration required. The Australian government needs to act.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. The Iranian diplomatic official should be declared persona non grata because he is engaged in the most vile speech imaginable whilst having diplomatic immunity in this country. It is not in our national interest that he continue to be in this country, and the Iranian government should be sent a message in regard to that in the strongest terms possible. I commend Senator Chandler on this motion.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to pass some remarks on this motion. While I definitely condemn the widespread sponsoring of terrorism, I think it's very important that we reflect on the West's actual role in sponsoring terrorism in the Middle East over the last 70 years.

In my lifetime, I saw the illegal invasion of Iraq and the death of what is estimated to be a million people in Iraq. I've never seen any accountability by governments in the West for the actions they caused there. And then we go to Iran: what happened in Iran, and why is Iran the country it is today? There was a president of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who cared deeply for his people, and he wanted those oil interests of Iran to be in Iranian hands. Yet the British, under Churchill, and the Americans, under Eisenhower—and I'm not sure how much Eisenhower knew about this, because there is a widespread pattern of coups whenever presidents take over, in their first year. These coups include Iran in 1953, Suez Canal in 1956, the Bay of Pigs when Kennedy got in, and Johnson in 1965 with Vietnam. The point of the matter is that the CIA overthrew a democratic leader in Iran who wanted to fight for his people and make sure that his country got royalties for those oil sales. That led, of course, to the Shah and his oppressive regime, which led to the overthrow, in 1979, of the Shah and what we've got today.

I've been to Iran. It's a beautiful country with beautiful people. I've been to Israel as well. I don't support any terrorism, but I think we need to be careful about taking a stand and being self-righteous about this when we've contributed ourselves.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As someone who was a diplomat in their former life, generally speaking I support the maintenance of diplomatic relations. I support having dialogue with countries with whom we can have quite deep disagreements. But that support and that worldview have limits, and I believe, in this instance, the Iranian ambassador has grossly exceeded those limits.

We heard Senator Ayres play a national interest card before, a mysterious national interest card about the unspoken and unwritten value or utility of Australia's relationship with Iran. Well, I do know what that value and utility is, but I also put a value and utility on social cohesion and social harm in Australia. That is also an important national interest. This motion does not urge or suggest the severing of diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It suggests quite clearly a strong expression of displeasure with the particular ambassador they have chosen to send us and the way he has sought to insert himself in domestic political discussions—in a way that has only inflamed community opinion, sharpened social divisions, encouraged some of the hate speech we have seen on our streets and grossly interfered in the domestic affairs of a country.

Having served as an ambassador myself overseas, I know your role is, of course, to represent and put forward your own country's views privately, diplomatically, often behind closed doors and, at times, to advocate your country's views in public. But you do not seek to do that in a way that inserts itself needlessly aggressively—provocatively, indeed—in another country's domestic political debates, and you certainly do not use the immunity and protections that your office affords you to call for things which would otherwise be unlawful.

We have had the Iranian ambassador publicly urging—this isn't something that he was rumoured to have been overheard saying at a cocktail party—using digital platforms, there for the world to see, to wipe out the Zionists from Palestinian holy lands and to praise Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of a listed terrorist organisation, as a remarkable leader. All the while, we in Australia are dealing with an outbreak in antisemitism and hostility directed at the Jewish community that we have not seen before, and comments such as these by the ambassador are seeking only to inflame the domestic political situation. I can tell you that, if the Australian Ambassador in Tehran were making comments that were even one-tenth or one-fiftieth as interventionist as these in Iran, he would be packing his bags and sent home within hours.

We have a situation here in Australia where the Albanese government is quite happy to summons the Israeli ambassador and urge them—indeed, more than urge them: dictate to them that, if they seek to use force to respond to aggression from the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, they will not have Australia's support. That was the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs summonsing the Israeli ambassador in June. But when the Iranian ambassador makes comments such as he has made about wiping out Zionists from the Palestinian holy lands and praising Hassan Nasrallah, we have weak commentary from the Prime Minister. We had after a period of days, eventually, an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade call in the Iranian ambassador and give them a mild dressing-down. They are laughing at us. We have a national interest, which Senator Ayres is so fond of quoting: we have a national interest in ensuring that diplomats present to Australia do not actively seek to undermine our social fabric, our social norms, the rule of law and the respect and tolerance we show all member for all faiths and communities in Australia. That is the national interest that this government should be standing up for. That is why this government should heed this motion.

This ambassador is on notice. He has been called in twice already because of public pressure, because of pressure from the opposition. They should tell him and tell the Iranian government he is no longer welcome in Australia as Iran's diplomatic representative. They should find someone else to send who is not going to actively seek to stir up Australians or incite vilification, racial division and hatred.

Question negatived.