Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes:

     (i)   that on 7 September 2001, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed Resolution 55/282 declaring that the International Day of Peace should be observed annually on the fixed date of 21 September, as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence,

     (ii)   that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has urged member states to support the observance of global ceasefire, and

     (iii)   that the slogan chosen by the UN for the 2011 marking of the day is 'Peace=Future' drawing particular attention to the impact of armed conflict on children and that the world's concerns will soon be in their hands;

  (b)   supports non-government organisations in Australia who intend to observe the day through vigils, concerts and walks; and

  (c)   calls on the Australian Government to:

     (i)   promote the observance of a global ceasefire for the duration of 21 September, and

     (ii)   support the observation of a ceasefire by not engaging in hostilities for the duration of 21 September, unless provoked to do so in self-defence.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [16:23]

(The President—Senator JJ Hogg)

Question negatived.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement in respect of motion 447.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the previous motion, No. 447, the government does not support conducting our complex defence and foreign policy by way of simple Senate resolutions. Australia remains a strong promoter of peace and security, regionally and globally, and has a long and very proud history of supporting United Nations and regional peacekeeping operations. While the government respects the sentiment behind the motion, the notion of a global ceasefire for the duration of the International Day of Peace is impractical.

Today, many conflicts we face, particularly terrorism and piracy, are not state based and do not respect international peace. A call to cease fire against these threats would be counterproductive to Australia and our partners' continued efforts for peace and security. The government's strong view is that it is in our national interest to be in Afghanistan, not just with our alliance partner the United States but also with 47 other members of the International Security Assistance Force, acting under a United Nations mandate. Australia's fundamental goal is to prevent Afghanistan, especially the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for attacks on innocent civilians, including Australians, in our own region and beyond. To achieve that goal we must help prepare the Afghan government to take lead responsibility for providing security for the Afghan people. To do so we must stabilise the security situation and mentor and train the Afghan security forces to take the lead in the security of their country by 2014.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I do not normally do this, but I will make a brief statement. I suspect we will hear something reasonably similar from Senator Abetz shortly.

I think this is incredibly sad. This was a fairly innocent motion, and none of the caveats that Senator Farrell just read into the record apply. All we are seeking to do here is give peace a chance, as it were. On 7 September 2001 the UN General Assembly passed resolution 55/282 declaring that the International Day of Peace should be observed annually on the fixed date of 21 September as a day of global ceasefire and nonviolence. Senator Farrell made it sound as though he was concerned to hear the Senate calling for Australian troops to sit on their hands while they were shot at in any number of the war zones we are engaged in at the moment.

Of course, the motion does no such thing. It calls on the government to 'support the observation of a ceasefire by not engaging in hostilities for the duration of 21 September, unless provoked to do so in self-defence'. I would not have thought it was too much to ask for one day to remind this chamber that we have put people in harm's way and that we are a country at war at the moment, and to perhaps take today to not engage in acts of aggression in any of the places where that might be possible. Of course, mostly our thoughts go to Afghanistan.

It was extremely ironic that most senators—in fact, the entire chamber—were entirely content to vote for the motion until the President, of all people, drew to their attention the fact that it might actually mean something. At that point they abashedly shuffled over to the other side of the chamber to crush it. I think that is a sad state of affairs, and I urge the Senate to reconsider. Next year, on 21 September 2012, we will move a motion similar to this one to remind senators that there are people in conflict zones in our name at the moment who should be brought home.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I too wish to make a brief statement of no longer than two minutes. I think one thing we can all agree on in this chamber is that we all support and pray for peace in our time. No-one has a mortgage on that aspiration. However, the coalition does join with Senator Farrell in relation to his comments as they relate to our situation in Afghanistan, so I do not need to delay by repeating those comments except to say that we agree.

Another theatre of war is currently in Libya. Of course, we know that Colonel Gaddafi's troops are on the retreat. They are being pressed hard. They would want nothing more than a day of peace to regroup to ensure that they cannot be defeated. The wording of the motion includes 'unless provoked to do so in self-defence'. Those liberation fighters who are seeking to press the advantage as we speak would be required to withhold for a whole day, which of course would have given an inappropriate advantage to the evil Gaddafi regime.

That is another example that echoes and builds on that which Senator Farrell so properly put to the chamber. So we as a coalition do support the sentiments and comments of the government in relation to this; that it in no way detracts from Labor's commitment or the coalition's commitment to peace in our time.