Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Calwell has reminded me that family and kids are so important to all of us. The longer you are here, the more you realise that. This is the seventh time that I have risen in this chamber to give a speech in the address-in-reply debate. I am blessed by the continuing support of the good burghers of Melbourne Ports, who have once again entrusted me to be their representative in Canberra.

Election campaigns in winter can be a trial, particularly in Melbourne. The 2016 election was long and difficult. I want to thank all of the people who worked tirelessly on my campaign in Melbourne Ports, led by my valiant wife, Amanda Mendes de Costa; our campaign director, George Droutsas; our office manager, Natalie Gonzalez; staff and numerous volunteers, including Tonya Stevens and Belinda Neal, who specially came down; our stalwart treasurer, Dr Henry Pinskier; state minister Martin Foley; Sylvia Freedman; Ronnie Aseraf; Simon Cosma; Prasad Gunaratna; Simone Kotlyar; John Dyett; Zach Littman; Dean Sherr; Andrew Landeryou; Josh Spiegel; and Ari Suss.To my two kids, Laura Danby and Byron Danby, who stood with me on election day: I am so grateful that you in particular were there at pre-polling and on election day.

I wish to outline two competing visions, which I think is appropriate in this address-in-reply debate. One is of an inclusive Australia, which the Labor Party fights for. It is a vision of Australia where people are free to marry whomever they wish, where workers receive decent pay for the work they do, where home ownership remains a realistic dream for the many, and where minorities have the tools to fight prejudice. This stands in stark contrast to the current government, which is led in name by the member for Wentworth. Its vision of Australia is a return to the 'good old days' pre Malcolm Fraser, where privilege remained concentrated in the hands of the few.

Labor's vision, which I was elected to further, is not universally shared by all of the people in this parliament, particularly in the Senate. I respect the diverse range of views expressed by other parliamentarians, as I do those on Sky News. However, those opposing views should not come at the cost of freedom, livelihood and the happiness of others. We are here to vote on marriage equality, 18C or the Chinese extradition treaty; we should not outsource our views to plebiscites. The purpose of representative democracy is to be here and work as hard for the interests that we represent as we can and, in normal political debates, the answers to these questions will come out if people do that faithfully and with respect for each other.

When it comes to protecting Australians, times have turned for the worse. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen the failed foreign policies of the Obama administration, in my view, leading to the rise of Daesh. To quote Cato the Elder's famous 'Carthago delenda est' dictum, Daesh must be destroyed. Four hundred great Australian servicemen, the second highest number of people from any country in the world, are in Iraq—together with our people are the Air Force—doing just that.

The problem of Daesh should not be seen through the prism of Middle East affairs. I wanted to look at that issue, because I believe the outpouring of refugees all over the world, including 12,000 were coming here to Australia, is the result of us acquiescing to Putin backing the dictatorship of Assad. Now we have Russia, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia all playing proxy wars in Syria. The men, women and children of Aleppo were subjected to the worst kinds of misery over the last six months of last year. There were no street demonstrations in the street by the Green political party or the socialist alternative. I think it is appalling that such a crime could be committed against 300 people and there be so little protest around the world.

I am very proud to say that my website was the first place in the world where the maps of the concentration camps that exist in North Korea were published. We cannot say that we do not know. We also pay great tribute to Justice Kirby, who led the international campaign to expose North Korea's appalling human rights record. Now their geostrategic is threat not just to the United States' west coast, Japan and South Korea but even to Australia, where their missiles could now hit as far as Darwin. The poor North Koreans, like the people of Tibet, suffer at the hands of an oppressive government. Beijing offers an Orwellian style guarantee of religion, language and customs in a fake constitution to the seven million poor souls of Tibet, who peacefully resist them.

I am proud to sometimes be called the member for lost causes and to stand up for the Muslims of Darfur, who are oppressed by the government; the Baha'is of Iran and many other minorities who need a voice in this parliament, because Australia is such a respected country around the world. To my dismay, the Foreign Minister clings to our faux friendship with Iran. I disagree with nearly everything that President Trump says and stand for, but on this issue he and the American Congress are right: the agreement with Iran remains one of the worst international pacts ever concluded. It provides far too many concessions for those currently in power in Persia. When it launches ballistic missiles, which says it is going to wipe out a member of the international community, our Foreign Minister will not say anything. It is very, very un-Australian and uncharacteristic of Australia's attitude of speaking out on these kinds of things, as other members of the international community do.

We have also seen from this government what can only be characterised as paralysis on the aggression being shown in the South China Sea. We have an international law of the sea, a judgement that is absolutely clear on where international legality stands. The existence of militarised islands in the South China Sea jeopardises 65 per cent of Australian maritime trade and 50 per cent of international trade. I had a very cheeky chairman of the National People's Congress once stand up very recently before the foreign affairs committee and assure me that, despite the fact that China had unilaterally announced that the South China Sea was one of their core interests, Australian ships, Indian ships, Korean ships and Japanese ships could peacefully transit through the South China Sea despite these militarised islands. I said, 'What about navies?' He said, 'Oh, yes, navies too.' I said, 'What about submarines?' He said: 'Oh, yes, submarines too. All they have to do is surface and fly their flags as they transit through the South China Sea.' Well, that is hardly the purpose of the protection that submarines offer and it is an indication of the arrogance that we are facing with this difficult issue.

See this speech in context