House debates

Tuesday, 16 October 2018

Motions

Racism

12:01 pm

Photo of Mr Tony BurkeMr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House rejects the resolution put to the Senate yesterday which included a white supremacist slogan that is also used by hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House rejects the resolution put to the Senate yesterday which included a white supremacist slogan that is also used by hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

This resolution is one that they should have given leave for. We have put no political argument into this. We have put no attack on the government in this. We have simply said what the Minister for Finance claimed a few minutes ago was now the government's position. We've simply given the House the opportunity to resolve that we are opposed to a white supremacist slogan that the Senate debated yesterday. And, instead of the government having the good sense to take that opportunity and say, 'Okay, we'll give you leave and we will all vote for it,' they've decided not to give leave, completely undermining everything the finance minister said only about an hour ago.

This resolution does not condemn the government, but what they just did does, because they were given an opportunity just then to vote on a motion that says nothing more than that we reject what Pauline Hanson put to the Senate yesterday, nothing more than that we reject a white supremacist slogan that has also been adopted by the Ku Klux Klan. We gave them the opportunity to simply vote for a resolution that says that. Bear in mind we were sorely tempted to put in a resolution that carried a whole lot of argument in it, but instead we have provided a resolution for every member of the coalition such that, if you oppose what Pauline Hanson put to the Senate yesterday, that will be the only question before you—nothing else. There will be no other question before the House. If that's something the government wants to vote against then what has the Liberal Party become? What have you become?

The Attorney-General's excuses on this have been completely pathetic. We're talking about a motion that was put on the Senate Notice Paper in September, that the Attorney-General had had since September and had issued instructions to support. The debate occurred, and the Liberal and National Party senators sat there, hearing the debate and knowing what they were about to vote on, and none of them questioned it. None of them thought, 'Maybe we should be opposed to this white supremacist stuff that's coming from Senator Hanson.' And then, after the vote had occurred, the Attorney-General tweeted in support of the government's position. The Leader of the Government in the Senate did the same. And then, once the community backlash said, 'We will not accept this white supremacist rubbish from the Liberal Party', they started to back-pedal and try to change their position. I suppose they also think it's a coincidence that One Nation announced their candidate on the weekend in the Attorney-General's own seat—a candidate he'll be trying to get preferences from. And a hint to those opposite: when a motion is moved by Pauline Hanson about race, it's probably not going to be an antiracism motion! It will probably not be the case. Note to self: think about that one.

We had nearly a whole day of debate here when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister and it was a good debate, because those in the other chamber, in the other place, the same senators who voted with Pauline Hanson yesterday, after Fraser Anning delivered his speech, all went up and congratulated him. They all went up and hugged him, embraced him, shook his hand. Not one of them had a problem with it. And yet, when everybody realised what happened, the government decided to back-pedal. When Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister, we were able to get bipartisanship on a resolution that said that shouldn't have happened. But now that we're in the days of the Morrison government, that doesn't happen anymore. Now that we're in the days of the Morrison government, when we have a resolution which says 'we reject what happened in the Senate yesterday', those opposite want to line up with it. The claims that were made by the finance minister about an hour ago amount to absolutely nothing. Don't pretend that you're suddenly opposed to what you voted for yesterday, if today you want to back-in yesterday's position, because that's what's in front of the chamber: that the House rejects the resolution put to the Senate yesterday which included a white supremacist slogan that is also used by hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. That is what has happened to debate in this country.

I've got to say, when we on this side discussed amongst ourselves me moving this, we deliberately wanted to give the parliament the opportunity for a moment of unity like we were able to achieve under the Turnbull government. We deliberately took a whole lot of comments I've used in my speeches out of the resolution so that we had a resolution that will give those opposite, in good conscience—and there are some of them who can act in good conscience opposite; there are some of them who don't want to line up with what the senators did yesterday—an opportunity to vote that way in the parliament now. I let the government know that I was going to move a resolution about yesterday. I made sure the Leader of the House was listening as I sought leave so he could hear every word of it. The answer to, 'Will we have that moment of unity again now that we're in the Morrison government?' is no. The answer is no.

We're back to the pattern that has changed ever since One Nation returned to this parliament. The last time the Australian people voted, they were told that support for multiculturalism, support for modern Australia, was bipartisan and they were told that by both sides of politics. But after the election, when One Nation turned up back in the parliament, all of a sudden those opposite are saying, 'We need to have more hate speech again. We need to change 18C'. That was back on the agenda. Fraser Anning gave his first speech, and they were up congratulating him after he'd spoken about the final solution. Even John Howard refused to give preferences to One Nation, and we've seen what they've done in the by-elections that have been held this term. All those principles that people opposite like Philip Ruddock were once willing to cross the floor over have shifted this term.

This is a debate about whether the modern Liberal Party are willing to support modern Australia, because last night they didn't. Last night that was a vote. At the point when you start using the same language that the KKK is happy with, you've really got to ask a question. Your defence is that the Attorney-General hadn't read it. Of all the jobs, of all the ministers to not read the detail, the Attorney-General of Australia is the one who didn't check the language. That's what this has come to?

It is very rare that we have a moment in the parliament where there is a resolution that both sides have claimed they support and yet we are about to divide over it. Only about an hour ago, the Leader of the Government in the Senate claimed he supported exactly what we are about to put to the House. It's really simple. This doesn't happen in a vacuum. There was a great speech given some time ago by one of the members opposite, the member for McMillan. He made a comment about appealing to the lowest common denominator—has never given anyone a job, has never given anyone a fresh start, has never improved anyone's education. What we should be doing together is standing against that rubbish. Instead, on a resolution that says nothing more than 'We reject what happened in the Senate yesterday,' those opposite are lining up now to dig in, to keep those tweets going and to keep backing in the offensive position of yesterday. Every decent member of this House should support this motion.

Comments

No comments