Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice relating to formal business, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion:

That general business notice of motion No. 1209 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Once more—

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a laughing stock.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't be lectured by the Greens. I won't be lectured by a party that has today engineered an inability of this Senate to talk about the terrible, terrible culture within its own party.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was Labor!

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen—can I say, Madam Deputy President, it's not raining outside; I didn't come down in the last shower. You couldn't do it yourself. You had to go to Labor to get it done.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Well, what we got is—we see the reformation of a coalition as we approach elections.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, could you resume your seat, please. Senator Leyonhjelm.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale has just referred to Senator O'Sullivan as a moron and a fool. I ask you to invite him to withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, I did not hear that. But if any senator did make disparaging remarks directly about another senator I would ask them to withdraw. Senator O'Sullivan, please continue.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to have a debate about morons and fools with the Greens anytime they like. But here we go again: a very serious motion, this time around issues to do with national security, is presented to the floor of this Senate and I'm denied the formality to allow people to place their vote. All I can assume is that, when you're denied formality, it's an indication that those denying it would have voted against the motion, as is true when I deny formality. It then follows that on such a significant issue of national security the Greens have now indicated that they don't want to be involved in a national discourse within this Senate, within this parliament, over such a serious issue. They don't want the question tested. This motion has been well thought through. It's a motion that is well structured and based in fact. It simply condemns the behaviour and the radicalisation of young Muslims in our country. We've seen recent events again. We know some of these institutions are hotbeds of radicalisation. This simply endeavours to lift awareness to address those issues. But this is about freedom of speech again. The denial of formality is about freedom of speech. You can't put—

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just denied formality yourself!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll respond to that interjection. I did put you on notice that it's a special this week at Ronald McDonald's—two for one: if you try and silence me, I'll silence you twice, and we'll go until there are no motions debated on the floor of this Senate, if that's what you choose to do. There is absolutely no blink in me. This has been going on over a period of time, where we've tried to put significant, important issues to the floor—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I'll tell you what: there's a hell of a lot of noise coming out of them now. There wasn't much noise when we were talking about rape and sexual assault on members of their political party. Their heads were down. They were absolutely silent at that time because they condone it. Denial of formality here suggests to me that they are not against the idea of radicalisation of young Muslims affecting the national security of this country. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. You should go back to being silent. That's when you make your best contribution.

The fact of the matter is that these are significantly important issues, and it goes all the way back to the first denial of formality that started this race to the bottom, which has been going on for couple of months. It started this race to the bottom and stopped people having a voice in one of the most important chambers in the country. What we say here and how we attach ourselves to a question and whether we support or don't support a particular issue is significant. Australia watches us. They do watch. I'm surprised at how many people don't have a hobby and spend their afternoon watching question time and now general notices of motion.

I'm happy, at any given time, as soon as I see a white flag anywhere—a hanky will do—to allow every motion to go to this floor to challenge each of us to determine how we will vote and support it. To deny people the ability to put serious motions about national security, about late-term abortions—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I was not. What do you think I am?

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

There we are. Give me more! It just inspires me. It keeps me going. I live on it. It is the fuel in my tank to hear you people. It's the fuel in my tank, because I will tell you what: it brings up the bile in my throat that you would deny this chamber the opportunity to criticise sexual aggression, complaints of rape that were not dealt with by each and every one of you, if the media reports are correct. This is about freedom of speech. This race to the bottom will continue. I'm happy to make a very significant contribution until we're allowed to debate questions of importance to our nation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find myself in furious agreement with Senator O'Sullivan. This is a most serious motion. Normally if someone is going to deny formality for something there would be a rational reason for it. We're yet to hear that rational reason. But I have heard arguments from the Greens party that they weren't the ones that denied formality, even though I did distinctly hear Senator McKim's voice deny formality to it.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Here they go up again, biting again and again and continuing to chime in. I'm surprised they don't want do have a discussion about radical Islam because normally they're very happy to talk about how the rest of Australia is racist—because they believe that Islam is a race—or the fact that we are over-egging a threat.

But let me make a point to you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I sat next to this odious character—Sheik whatever he is—who went on to tell me that no Muslim has ever committed a crime in the history of the world. That's what he said to me. He said that Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia weren't responsible for the falling of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. This is the delusional character who purports to speak on behalf of Muslims in this country. He is an out-and-out nut job—I make no bones about that—and his brand of Islam is nutty. It is chaotic; it is dysfunctional. And the Greens will not allow it to be condemned. They've joined up in the past. They've joined up with Iranians, as the Iranians are persecuting their own citizens and hanging homosexuals. It's like a bizarre sort of red-green alliance. They've defended this sort of nonsense for far too long. Now they're denying formality to this chamber, which is their right. But they are denying formality for this chamber to pass a motion, a statement of intent, condemning the ideology of the rabid feral dogs who are out there trying to butcher Australian citizens.

Senator McKim interjecting—

This is the disgrace. I note the huffing and puffing from Senator McKim over there. He's huffing and puffing as, just last week or the week before, we had one of these radical converts stabbing people and taking lives in the Bourke Street Mall, as referenced in this motion. Where were the Greens condemning that? They weren't. They are shameless. Now they're denying formality to this chamber to pass a resolution, which is absolutely sympathetic. It is in keeping with what is important to the Australian people: a safe and orderly society. They will welcome people from all over the world, but they will have no time for the extremists who are seeking to radically overthrow, overhaul or damage the Australian citizenry and our way of life.

There is no more radical and dangerous ideology in this chamber than what is sitting in the Greens, because we know they are prepared to cover up the slights against the Western world, if it supports their goals. We know they are prepared to cover up the misogyny, the misandry, the sexual abuse, the rape allegations and the complaints against their own organisations, if it will further the global Greens cause. We know that they have no regard for truth or fact. They are prepared to peddle any fiction in the name of growing their own support base.

Denying formality on such a significant motion is another example of just how out of touch this radical and extreme Greens movement is with what the Australian people expect. For those who say we pass too many motions in this place, very few, if any, are more serious than this. This is not a platitude. This is not just a spurious political stunt. This is about our national security and it is about uniting the Australian people—uniting this chamber—and yet we find it fosters division because of the radical elements that are at work here.

Radical Islam is a dangerous ideology, just like the radical Greens movement is a dangerous ideology. I'm amazed. They always like talking about identities and they love talking about the alphabets, Muslims, vegans and everyone else who is apparently marginalised in society, but when it comes to sticking up for the rest of Australia—for those people who entrust this place and this government and successive governments with their national security—where do they go? They go missing. They deny formality. It is an indictment upon them.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to be clear that the Labor Party did not deny formality, but we would oppose this motion. Firstly, I want to reflect on the concerns, or reservations, many senators have about how formal business is being managed in this place. I understand, on this occasion, the government will support this suspension of standing orders. It's their business agenda. If they want to allow it to be diverted in this fashion, who are we to necessarily compromise that? But, in relation to this motion, I want to make it clear that Labor firmly believes that the Muslim community is already providing valuable cooperation with security and enforcement agencies. The security agencies themselves say that this cooperation is one of the most important tools they have in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Labor abhors violent extremism in all its forms. Singling out one community is rarely helpful. This motion is a sad attempt at a stunt. Division gives terrorists and those who wish to do us harm exactly what they want.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They want us silenced.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The vast majority of Muslims make significant and valued contributions to Australian society, not as Senator O'Sullivan just interjected. Australian Muslims are a valued part of the Australian community. We want to be clear: the blame for terrorist attacks does not lie with them. We must all work together to stop self-radicalisation before it begins.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to talk so much about the substance of the motion, although I can't understand why anyone would oppose a motion that calls upon the Islamic community in Australia to continue—continue—to condemn radical Islam in speech and deed and reaffirm its commitment to working alongside Australian security agencies to address radicalisation in all its forms. In spite of what Senator Collins just said, I can't understand why anyone in this chamber would not want to support at least that aspect of the motion. I also note in passing that it calls upon Sheikh Omran to publicly retract his criticism of police and intelligence services and to denounce all radical Islamic speech and jihadism. Again, whilst that may cause some concern to some, I would think that most couldn't really object to that call to action in this motion.

But why I speak in support of the motion of my colleague Senator O'Sullivan, also supporting the words of Senator Bernardi, is that this again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. It's interesting to note that the Labor Party denied that they were the ones who denied formality.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we weren't.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that, Senator Collins. But I also note that the Greens denied that it was them, so it must have been the Xenophon party or the Independents. I understand that the Greens political party did deny formality. Why I support this motion of Senator O'Sullivan is that it demonstrates, yet again, the ultimate hypocrisy of the Greens political party. I'm not sure that I particularly supported Senator O'Sullivan's previous motion highlighting the sexual harassment and misdeeds of the Greens political party. I hadn't seen it before and I hadn't formed my opinion on what we should do. But I do think that these things should be allowed to be put to a vote. But the Greens had a no problem in that instance in denying—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We didn't do it!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't? Okay.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask senators to respect that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoy the interjections and the abuse from the Greens political party, because it again demonstrates, time and time again, the absolute and abject hypocrisy of the Greens political party. Whether or not they agree with Senator O'Sullivan's motion seems to me to be a relatively minor part of the issue. The issue is the freedom of speech. The Greens exercise that opportunity here every day in this section of the parliament. They always bring up motions that most of the rest of us have got better things to do with our time than to deal with. The Greens will further delay the Senate knowing that they don't have the numbers, but they will continue to call divisions when they know they have clearly lost the motion they have put forward. Why do they do that? You can ask them, but I guess it's again for crass political reasons, for their own small band of followers they have—a band of followers, I might say, that is getting smaller. But the way the Greens will always deny others the opportunity to speak doesn't apply to themselves. If anyone ever should deny them the opportunity to speak, there is absolute and abject outrage. The hypocrisy of the Greens political party knows no bounds. I would certainly support Senator O'Sullivan's right to put this motion as a formal motion and have the Senate determine it accordingly.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the chamber to my previous remarks.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because there's been, I believe deliberately, a significant misinformation placed on the record about what's happened this afternoon, I just want to be clear about what has actually happened in the last half an hour in this Senate. It was the Australian Labor Party that denied formality to Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Bernardi. It was not the Australian Greens. It was the Australian Labor Party. Despite the sordid little fantasies of Senator Bernardi, suggesting that the Greens had asked or set up Labor to do that, I can categorically assure him and the Senate that that was not true in the slightest. Then we had a situation where Senator O'Sullivan denied Senator Di Natale—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, please resume your seat.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a point of order that Senator McKim seems to be confused. I'm not a co-sponsor of this motion at all—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, that is not a point of order. It's a debating point.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. It's actually about truth.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a separate point of order. Senator Collins assured the Senate that she did not deny leave. Senator McKim has just said that they didn't, and he said the Labor Party—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat, thank you.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, I have asked you to resume your seat. That is a debating point.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be clear. Let's be clear about what happened this afternoon. Motion No. 1212, to be moved by Senator Bernardi and Senator O'Sullivan, was denied leave by the Australian Labor Party, not by the Greens. It was actually denied leave by Labor against our will. We were very happy to have that motion brought on, contrary to the sordid little fantasies of Senator Bernardi. Then what happened was that Senator O'Sullivan denied leave to Senator Di Natale for formality on his motion relating to climate change. And, yes, I then did deny formality on this motion—

Honourable senators interjecting—

not on the previous one, as has been erroneously put forward—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask senators to please be respectful and allow him to continue his remarks. Thank you.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. It's interesting what happens when you put the facts on the record in this place—and that is in fact what I have just done.

Now, in regard to this motion, we would not have supported this motion, like the Labor Party. We would not have supported this motion, because it picks out one group of people when it talks about some of the challenges that this country is facing. If you want to have a look at some of the challenges this country is facing, maybe you should have a bit of a look at the Hillsong Church at the moment. Maybe you should have a bit of a look there, at our Prime Minister and his relationship with people in the Hillsong Church. Do you see how easy this game is to play? Is it becoming clear to you now how easy it is? You see? That's the problem that we have here.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, please resume your seat.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on interjections and disorderly conduct, Deputy President. I've heard chimpanzees chatter before, but I've never heard one chatter as long and as loud as Senator Bernardi is doing in this chamber.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Once again, I will ask senators to continue the debate in respectful silence—unless, of course, you are standing and making a contribution.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I am of course making here is that you shouldn't tarnish a large group of people because of the sins of a few members of that group. You shouldn't do it. And that's what this motion seeks to do to Muslim people. That's what it seeks to do. We are saying very clearly that of course there are Muslim people who do bad things. Of course there are Christian people who do bad things. Of course there are atheists who do bad things. There are people in most groups in our community who do bad things. You shouldn't tarnish the reputations of an entire group of people because some members of that group do bad things.

We're going to stand up for reason in this debate. We are going to stand up for facts to be placed on the record. And we are going to stand up against the ongoing demonisation of Australia's entire Muslim community by people like Senator Bernardi who believe it is in their political interests to do that. That's what we are standing up for here today: for fairness, for an acknowledgement that every group of people that has a reasonable number of people in it is going to contain people who do bad things. But we shouldn't be tarnishing those entire groups of people because of the actions of a few. That applies to the Christian churches that ran protection rackets for paedophiles as much as it applies to any other group. So I urge members to let motions be debated, to put facts on the record rather than making stuff up—like Senator Macdonald has and like Senator Bernardi has—and not tarnish large groups of people because of the actions of a few.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, as moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) multiple Australian Islamic terrorists, including the Bourke Street terrorist, ISIS suicide bombers and would-be domestic terrorists, have links to the Hume Islamic Youth Centre,

(ii) ABC's 4 Corners journalist and executive producer, Ms Sally Neighbour, writing for The Australian in 2006, stated that Hume Islamic Youth Centre Emir Mohammed Omran is a leader of "...the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association – now regarded as the most radical Islamic group in Australia",

(iii) in the 2006 article, which reported on a meeting between Sheik Mohammed Omran and Abu Bakar Bashir, head of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings, Ms Neighbour describes Sheik Omran as "...well-connected in international Salafist circles. A Jordanian-born migrant to Australia, his friends included the British-based al-Qa'ida luminary Abu Qatada, whom Omran hosted in Australia in 1994. Interviews with Osama bin Laden and Abu Qatada were among the items featured in the online magazine Nida'ul Islam (Call to Islam), published by Omran's acolytes in the Islamic Youth Movement and read widely in Australia",

(iv) despite repeated cases of radicalised lslamists attending the Hume Islamic Youth Centre, Sheik Omran this week criticised calls for imams to increase actions to combat extremism – with counterclaims that his greatest power was only to call Triple O when confronted with a threat – and instead accused Australia's police and security agencies of complacency over the movements of the Bourke Street Islamic terrorist, and

(v) Sheik Omran, who is regarded as arguably Australia's most senior Salafist cleric, would face significant punishment and hardship if he was to make comparable criticism of Jordanian security agencies, where it is a criminal offence to criticise the king and government officials; and

(b) calls on the Senate to:

(i) condemn radical Islam, whether in speech or deed,

(ii) call on the Islamic community in Australia to continue to condemn radical Islam in speech and deed, and reaffirm its commitment to working alongside Australian security agencies to address radicalisation in all its forms, and

(iii) call on Sheik Mohammed Omran to publically retract his criticism of police and intelligence services and denounce all radical Islamic speech and jihadism.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1209, moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.