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

I remind senators that, after 6.30 pm yesterday, a division was called on the amendments moved by Senator Birmingham to the motion moved by Senator Wong concerning Hamas's attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate that the deferred vote be held now.

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

by leave—I will make a short statement. The government will be requesting that the question on the amendments moved by the opposition be divided. I've had a discussion with Senator Birmingham and I think he's of the same mind—I'm sorry I haven't had a chance, Senator, to speak to you about that. We seek to vote separately to oppose amendments contained in paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) of the sheet of amendments, which is on pages 6 and 7 of the Notice Paper, circulated by the opposition yesterday. For the clarity of the chamber, paragraph (i) relates to the opposition seeking to delete reference to the number of Palestinian civilians killed and the catastrophic humanitarian situation. We wish to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (l) the opposition seeks to remove the reference to a ceasefire in Gaza. The government wishes to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (m) the opposition seeks to delete the proposition of support for a two-state solution, and the government wishes to oppose that amendment. However, in the interests of seeking maximal bipartisanship on this, the government is supporting the remaining amendments. For the benefit of senators, I table a letter I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition that outlines the government's position.

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

Thank you, Minister Wong. I advise the chamber that the Government Whip did advise the chamber last night that the government would be seeking to vote differently on the different amendments.

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

by leave—President, when it comes to the question, I foreshadow that I will ask that certain parts of the substantive motion, after we've dealt with the amendments, be voted on separately. But we'll deal with that when we get there.

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

The first question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to, and the government has requested that they be dealt with separately. So the question is that the opposition amendments to paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) be agreed to.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I was in the wrong spot, and I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

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

With the agreement of the chamber, we will record your vote as being with the noes. The question is that the remaining amendments to paragraphs (a), (f), (h), (k), (p) and (q), as moved by Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

"the Senate:

(a) commemorates the victims of 7 October 2023 and reiterates its condemnation of the attacks;

(b) calls for the unconditional release of the hostages and political prisoners;

(c) condemns all forms of racism including anti-semitism and Islamophobia;

(d) condemns the State of Israel's ongoing genocide and war crimes in Gaza that have killed more than 41,000 people and the ongoing illegal actions and bombing in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon;

(e) notes the International Court of Justice has made clear the State of Israel's occupation of Palestine is unlawful and based on apartheid;

(f) believes the illegal occupation underlies the escalating cycle of violence in the Middle East which must come to an end; and

(g) calls on the Government to take meaningful action towards a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians and others in the Middle East by implementing the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteurs and ending the two-way arms trade and placing sanctions on Netanyahu's extremist government".

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

The question is that the amendment to the amended motion as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.

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

On behalf of the coalition, I ask that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately on the motion as amended. These paragraphs, in the coalition's perspective, given the defeat of our proposed amendments, do not reflect appropriately what had previously been the longstanding bipartisan approach towards a negotiated two-state solution, nor do they accurately reflect the international approach in relation to securing lasting peace and security.

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

Senator Birmingham has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be moved separately, so we will deal with these two amendments first. The question is that paragraphs (l) and (m) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm wondering whether the two clauses could be put separately.

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

If that's your request then we can do that, Senator Hanson-Young. I am advised that we will put the question again. Senator Hanson-Young has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately. It is my intention to move paragraph (l). The question is that paragraph (l) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

While we're waiting for the bells, I have been asked to read paragraph (l). On the original motion, this was paragraph (k). It says that the Senate:

(l) stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to negotiate and secure de escalate, for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon, and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region;

That is what we are voting on now.

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

by leave—We will shortly be proceeding to vote on the paragraph in the resolution which deals with a two-state solution:

… so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;

I understand, and I hope I am wrong, that the opposition and the Greens are not prepared to support that paragraph. Can I say to both the opposition and the Greens that that is not only a longstanding bipartisan and historical position; it is the position of the international community, it is the position of so much of the Palestinian leadership, and it is the position that is the only way in which we will, ultimately, see long-term security and peace for Israelis. If the Greens and the opposition combine to ensure that this parliament is not able to support a two-state solution—a longstanding commitment made by the international community when Israel was established, a longstanding commitment that would reflect the aspirations of both peoples—it really says something about the extent to which domestic politics is now perverting this debate in Australia. It is inconsistent with Australia's longstanding position, it is inconsistent with the international community, it is inconsistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is inconsistent with long-term security and peace for the people of Israel.

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

by leave—The coalition will be opposing clause (m), and we will be opposing it, noting that the amendment we proposed was defeated on the opposition of the government. By opposing our amendment, which would have changed the 'support for a two-state solution' to being 'support for a negotiated two-state solution', the government critically tore up decades of bipartisan support. Senator Wong is being entirely misleading when she says that, in the position the coalition is taking, we are opposing longstanding bipartisanship. It is in fact the Albanese government that has reversed the position of longstanding bipartisanship, has walked away from the commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, where difficult questions and issues, such as security guarantees between the two parties, agreed borders and rights of return, would be settled to achieve a lasting and secure two-state solution. It is indeed the government that has rejected longstanding bipartisanship, that has changed position on these matters, and we will not, in a Senate resolution, be railroaded into supporting the government's revised form of wording. That is why we proposed an amendment consistent with the longstanding bipartisan position and, given the government chose to reject that longstanding bipartisan position, we cannot support this clause of the resolution.

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

The question is that paragraph (m) be agreed to.

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

I now intend to put the next question: that the remaining paragraphs be agreed to.