Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say, as somebody who is not afraid of partisan conflict from time to time—I engage in it happily myself—that I really despair at what has happened this morning. I genuinely despair at what has happened this morning. I saw a series of exchanges which were, given the personalities involved and given the accelerationist approach that is taken by the Greens political party and One Nation in this place around politics and conflict, inevitable. Once again, the Liberal Party, which used to be an alternative party of government, fell for that with the approach that they have taken in here this morning.

My complaint about this—I'll come to the substance of this in a moment—is not just procedural. It goes to the conduct and the motives of people in this place, the way that they conduct themselves outside of this place and the very real impact that has for political debate here in Australia. What we should be doing right now is dealing with the Closing the Gap statement that should have been made by the minister in this place when we commenced. But the interests and rights and progress and lack of progress in some areas, in terms of Aboriginal people, are pushed aside again—pushed aside again by the Greens political party, pushed aside again by the Liberal Party and pushed aside by One Nation and the National Party—in the interests of a divisive, nasty effort to elevate conflict in this place.

It could have been done completely differently. There is an alternative approach for people who are serious about the national interest. That would have been the traditional approach here. When there is a war on, when there is conflict overseas, when Australia's interests are engaged in these questions, there should have been an alternative way. The Closing the Gap statement and debate should have been at the same time, and it should be held for the same amount of time. There should have been engagement between the party that claims to be an alternative party of government and the government about the terms of a debate, when it was going to be held, whether agreement could be secured, and, in the absence of agreement, what the disagreement was about and how that would be dealt with by the Senate. That is how responsible parties of government engage over these questions, and that allows people to have their alternative views—absolutely. But what the Senate chose to do here utterly flies in the face of the national interest. The conduct of Senator Roberts in here before shows exactly why the alternative approach—that is, doing things in a decent way, doing them the Australian way—should have been taken rather than this deliberately undergraduate, deliberately hyperpartisan and deliberately conflict based approach that has been taken.

The Liberal Party made a choice today, and it's the same choice that they have made over and over again since they lost government in 2022. There is no issue that goes to our social cohesion, no issue that goes to conflict and no issue that goes to war and national security that the Liberal Party leadership has not been prepared to advance a highly partisan position on. That has had its consequences. Australians are walking away from them. With complete disregard to that, the Liberals have adopted a position here to do it again over this issue, which, no doubt, will have the same result. Contrary to what Senator Paterson just said, there aren't people in the Knesset, in Port Moresby, in Washington or anywhere else waiting to see what the resolution of the Australian Senate is. It matters here in the way that people conduct themselves.

The Liberal Party of Australia have chosen Mr Taylor as their leader, so we can expect not just more of the same but more of more of the same—more extremism. I know Senator Paterson is anxious to avoid discussions about the perilous position that they have not just found themselves in but made for themselves—whether or not they will continue to aid and abet the progress of the party that seeks to destroy them and replace the centre-right in Australian politics. We heard what Senator Roberts said. I'm old enough, now, to remember people saying very much the same thing about Australian Catholics. I remember the division and hurt that caused and the schisms in country towns all over Australia because of precisely that attitude in saying that all people of a particular faith have particular characteristics. It's an abomination to say that. It is un-Australian to say that. It runs contrary to all of our values that should be shared around this place.

But, in the context of a war—let's call it what it is, a war—Senator Roberts, Senator Cash, Senator McKenzie and the Greens political party see this as an opportunity to create more conflict in here and propagate that conflict outside. There's plenty of room for agreement, discussion and the development of an approach to this that would have met the objectives of what the Senate order was going to be today—questions around Aboriginal health, incarceration, the criminal justice system, education, land rights and all of those questions. Wouldn't a good outcome for Australians have been a sober, orderly, decent debate where we acknowledge our differences? Instead, what we've seen is more sloganeering from the Greens political party, more extremism from the Liberal Party and the national interest—and, don't forget, the interests of Aboriginal Australians—just being pushed aside.

The outcome of this conflict is uncertain. It is true that there are Iranians in the streets. That is true. It is true that there may be progress. There may be, but the outcome is uncertain. Those people, in real danger and in real struggle, are utterly let down by the conduct of senators who've decided to vote for this debate to happen in the way and manner that it is.

I saw the exchange here, and I saw people leaving the gallery—people with kids, just disgusted with this: the Greens, Senator Thorpe, Senator Roberts, the Liberal Party and National Party conflict behaviours—utterly ashamed of the way people have conducted themselves in this place. We ought to do the right thing in this place, not engage in hyperpartisanship. And we'll see the decision the Liberal Party makes, every day of the week, to bring that conflict in here, and we'll see it in Farrer in just a few weeks, or a few months, whenever that by-election is called. We'll see whether they continue to aid and abet the rise of a racist, extremist, accelerationist outfit that wants to promote conflict and promote violence and whether they support them and continue to go down the tube as a result. On that, I move that the motion be put.