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

I now move the motion in relation to the conduct of Senator Babet, as circulated in my name:

That the Senate—

(a) censures Senator Babet for his inflammatory use of hate speech, designed to drive division for his own political benefit;

(b) assures all Australians that no matter their race, religion, gender, sex, or sexuality they are valued, welcome members of our society;

(c) affirms that, if Parliament is to be a safe place for all who work and visit here, there can be no tolerance for hate speech in the course of parliamentarians' public debate; and

(d) calls on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments, both inside and outside the chamber, at all times.

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

I know the Leader of the Government spoke when moving the procedural motion at the outset. In the case of Senator Thorpe, I made it clear that the opposition's support for the censure was not because we denied her the right to say the things that she said but because we were appalled at the way in which she said them and the time and place in which she sought to pursue those issues.

In the case of this motion of censure of Senator Babet, the words that he has placed on the public record are repugnant, are abhorrent and have no place in proper, orderly civil conduct and debate in 2024. People are free to be warriors—

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

Order! Senator Thorpe, you are out of order. Senator Thorpe, come to order.

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

Why wasn't I allowed to be here? Shame on you all!

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

Senator Thorpe, I have called you to order! Senator Birmingham, please continue.

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

As I was saying in relation to Senator Babet, the remarks are repugnant, abhorrent and have no place in the civil discourse of 2024. People are free to rail against political correctness or so-called 'wokeism', but the way to do that is not to offend your fellow Australians, demean your fellow Australians or engage in conduct that, long ago, was seen to be completely socially unacceptable and that certainly should not be tolerated in supposed leaders of our country, the elected senators of this parliament.

We don't wish to see the Senate have to become the word police or the thought police for senators. We again look forward to discussions in Procedure Committee as to how we manage these issues. But there is a point and time where conduct and language are so appalling that the Senate needs to make its opinion clear. We made it clear, in relation to conduct, just before. We make it clear now, in relation to conduct and language. When it comes to Senator Babet, I think what we saw, in the midst of my remarks, simply amplifies the point that Senator Wong made at the outset—that, of course, these instances of conduct are all too much about attention seeking and trying to gain a relevance that otherwise is not supported by the electorate or by the vast and overwhelming majority of Australians.

Although, in a country like ours, it is the job of our free press to report properly upon the proceedings of this parliament and the debates that occur, I would urge them to consider the weight they give to such minority outbursts and the elevation that they provide to minority outbursts and incendiary or inflammatory or insulting language used by individual members of parliament, when the weight they give those things only amplifies them in ways that those individuals do not deserve to have amplified and only fosters the type of division that those of us who wish to focus on the good governance of this country would wish to avoid.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make clear that I would have voted for this censure motion. I had taken the opportunity to call Senator Babet this morning, after I found out about this, and let him know that, while I consider him a mate, I didn't at all support the statements he made. They were reprehensible, as the Leader of the Opposition said, and they're not the sort of conduct that senators in this place, senators of this country, should engage in. But, again, I'll have to make the same point I made earlier: Senator Babet—like Senator Thorpe—deserves to be here in this place to hear these arguments and potentially to defend himself.

When I rose in the earlier debate, I actually was still of a mind to vote for the motions of censure of Senator Thorpe and Senator Babet, but, with all respect, I couldn't in good conscience do that after the inept response from the Leader of the Government. She made no attempt to outline why this process has been brought on at this time—what the urgency of it is. My understanding is that those senators have been affected by flight delays this morning. My understanding is that they were informed only this morning that this was coming on. That's just a complete lack of process. Perhaps, in response to my points this time, Senator Wong could outline exactly when Senators Thorpe and Babet were informed of the government's intention and how much time they gave them to mount a proper defence.

This is a serious action. It's not a criminal court, of course, but it's a serious process where basic rights of process should apply. People being accused of something as grievous as they are this morning, clearly, in a free, fair and equal society, deserve the opportunity to mount a defence. They deserve adequate time to prepare that defence. They deserve a proper ability to hear all the points of view that are being put against them—the arguments that are being substantiated to take an action of this severity. But, as I said earlier, we've cheapened this whole process and made a mockery of the censure process.

I hope this is not a precedent. I was one of the few who voted against former member for Dawson Mr George Christensen being censured a few years ago. I don't believe we will look back on that kindly as a chamber. He had the temerity at the time to say masks don't work. I know we were all panicked at the time—and we succumbed to that panic—but it was an absolutely absurd thing. Notwithstanding your views on masks today—you hardly see anyone wearing them anymore—to censure someone for that was absurd! Now we're doing this. Where's it going to end? We should keep the censure process for things of a grave, serious nature. We won't do that if we all repeat this tawdry exercise we've engaged in this morning.

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

I rise to speak to this because I feel very strongly that these censures, while I support them and while the conduct is unbecoming, are political pointscoring. I say that because I've tried to censure public servants in the past—in particular, John Skerritt, when he was head of the TGA, for lying to me in estimates. It never got past the community affairs committee. He lied to me on a number of occasions throughout Senate estimates, but I couldn't get that off the ground. That was a serious issue.

I also called a press conference a couple of weeks ago, when we were down here for the last set of estimates, because I wanted to talk about some very serious issues. One was that we've got a former politician that hasn't been named by the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, who said that this politician sold out Australia. For some reason the two major parties don't want to discuss this at all, and I feel this is a very, very serious issue.

We've got other issues that occur all the time, and instead we come into this chamber every sitting week and start engaging in political pointscoring. Don't get me wrong, this behaviour is unbecoming. But, ultimately, as they say, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. We have genuine, serious issues out here, which people don't want to discuss, where hardworking Australians are being damaged by actions of their government.

I urge the chamber to stop political pointscoring for a change and start dealing with issues. One, in particular—this hasn't yet been brought to the Senate's attention; it only came up in estimates—is that Treasury hasn't mentioned that they haven't updated their tax agreement with Ireland since 1983. In 1983 Ireland had a tax rate of 40c in the dollar. It's now got a tax rate of 12½c in the dollar. Billions of dollars are going offshore—

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

Senator Rennick.

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

and no-one in this chamber cares—

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

Senator Rennick!

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

about the cost of it to the Australian people.

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

Senator Rennick! I should not have to keep calling you. When I call your name, I expect you to stop. You are ranging a long way from the issue at hand, which is the censure motion towards Senator Babet. The other point is that, if you used the term 'liar' to describe a senator in this place, you would have to withdraw. Whilst I can't ask you to withdraw that language for a public servant, I would remind you of that. Please continue.

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

I'll wrap it up and say: can we stick to the substance of the issue? I didn't know that I called anyone in here a liar, but it wasn't intentional to call someone in here a liar.

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

Senator Rennick, it was in relation to a public servant.

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

I'll make three points. First, censure is about the protection of the institution. It's not a legal, fact-finding process about whether someone has done something or whether someone's evidence is incorrect. It's about us as a collective protecting the institution. That's a decision we make. The second point I will make is that it is normal practice for these issues to be dealt with at the first available opportunity. I think, Senator Canavan, you did not demur when Senator Birmingham took such an approach in relation to then Senator Rice. It was at the next available opportunity. The third point I'll make is that, whilst I appreciate people have travel difficulties, the majority of the Senate is here and has ensured that we are here for the opening of the Senate.

Ultimately, this is about the protection of the institution and what we as a collective determine is acceptable. We all have different views—that is what this place deals with—but we also have to make a decision about what behaviours are appropriate in the expression of those views and also, in relation to Senator Babet, about whether, in 2024, the sorts of views that he has articulated, which are, frankly, hateful about our fellow Australians, are something that we should be condoning as a Senate. I for one do not condone them. I commend the motion.

Question agreed to.