Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Green, Keneally, O’Neill today relating to debt compliance and the Department of Social Services.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing a continuation under the government in this term of the steady trend towards the far Right that we saw from this government in the last term. We may be in a new term of parliament, the third term for this Abbott/Morrison/Turnbull government, but it's the same old Liberals and Nationals, the same old dog whistling, and the same old pandering to the far Right of politics. Who can forget, in the last term, the debacle where we saw the Liberals and Nationals vote for an extreme right-wing motion put forward, I think it was by Senator Hanson, that 'It's okay to be white.' We were told at the time that that vote was actually due to some sort of administrative error. The actions of the same nature that have been revealed during question time this week cannot be blamed on an administrative error, because we are now seeing the open endorsement of extreme right-wing hate speech by figures within this government. Before the last election, we saw many moderate members of the Liberal Party flee the parliament, and it's increasingly clear that we're now left with what is an increasingly conservative rump. They are the true leaders of the Liberal Party in this place.

The government says that hate speech is the price of free speech. I utterly reject that, and Labor utterly rejects that. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is different. Hate speech incites hatred and violence, and it is grounded in someone's personal characteristics: it's about attacking someone because of their race, their religion, their sexuality, their gender. That is not the normal cut and thrust of debate. That is something quite different, and something that of all of us should stand against. What has given rise to this is the revelation that at least two members of this government intend—and have been advertised as—participating in and appearing on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference. That's a conference that's going to be attended by high-profile right-wing extremists, including US Congressman Matt Gaetz, best known for inviting Holocaust denier Charles C Johnson to the State of the Union—a man who asked for help in taking out a Black Lives Matter activist and denying that over six million Jewish people were murdered in the Holocaust. In addition, that conference will be addressed by failed UKIP leadership candidate Raheem Kassam whose actions include labelling the Koran as 'fundamentally evil' and insulting, in the most offensive way possible, British politician Nicola Sturgeon. Also in attendance will be some known to us in this chamber and in this parliament, including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and, of course, Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker and Liberal MP Craig Kelly.

Those you associate with does say something about you. Senator Stoker has made an active choice to share a stage with right-wing extremists, such as the two that I've just mentioned. She's not required to attend this conference by virtue of her membership of a political party or anything of the sort; she has made an active choice to share a stage with these right-wing extremists. The government's lack of concern about this conference and, in fact, its participation in this conference is appalling. How can government members promote the kind of hate speech that is being spouted by those attending?

I was encouraged yesterday when Senator Cormann described the various statements made by speakers at this conference as abhorrent, disgraceful and completely outrageous, but unfortunately overnight we've seen Senator Stoker double down, saying that the CPAC program is 'Packed with incredible speakers who've got some great ideas to share.' She has also suggested that the idea of banning the attendance of Mr Kassam would be 'stupid, impractical and harmful for a civil society'.

Today, we've seen Senator Cormann backtrack from his earlier remarks. He's changed his position on this conference and he's released a statement that informs us:

The attendance of current and former members and senators at CPAC is a matter for those individuals. Their attendance at this conference does not imply agreement or endorsement with the views of any of the other speakers attending in any way.

Unfortunately, Senator Cormann has gone from thinking this was abhorrent to now approving of participation. Clearly, overnight we've seen the hard right of the Liberal Party lay down its instructions and get him to change position. We must take a stand on right-wing extremism and not support it. (Time expired)

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great opportunity this is to deal with some of the rubbish we have had served up in the last two question times. I'm going to start by taking some of the points that have been served up in the warm slop that has just been provided by Senator Watt. Not once but twice he has taken the statement I made yesterday, quoted it out of context, twisted it, and cut and pasted it somewhere else, so I'm going to help him out. I'm going to provide the words I supplied in context, because in context they make a whole lot more sense than the nonsense that's been spurted by those people on the other side.

Let's get in there. It goes a bit like this. If we're doing our job properly as politicians, we will talk to people from all walks of life every day and we won't agree with them all. Trying to shame into silence anyone who would speak to a person who is wrong on an issue damages our capacity to have a constructive democracy. When we're confronted with people with whom we disagree, the answer isn't to pretend that you're too good to walk into a room with them. The answer isn't to carry on, virtue-signal and make out you are as nice as pie—so good that you wouldn't even walk near these people. Instead, the answer is to engage with people who have wrong-headed ideas. The answer is to talk to them about why their view is wrong and why it should shift. To do anything less than this means inhabiting an echo chamber of people who all think exactly the same way. You know what? That explains a lot about the Labor Party: they only talk to themselves. That's why they think that you can't even walk into a room unless you have checked out the backgrounds of every single person who's in the room to see whether they have the same preconceived ideas that you do.

You know what, let's get to the direct quote that they have taken out of context. I said, 'Their ideas, their deplatforming nonsense means that you couldn't walk into a room without doing background checks on everyone in it. That's stupid, impractical and harmful for a civil society.' That's what I said. I didn't say it was stupid and impractical to condemn bad beliefs. I think the views of Mr Kassam are stupid, childish and wrong. But there's a very, very big difference between a person, who is an ex-Muslim man who is now an atheist—part of the same ethnic minority—who has now made a decision that he opposes radical Islam and when he talks about it he's talking about his own experiences. He is a man from the very same ethnic minority criticising the group with which he was raised.

The views of Labor here are, in fact, actually rather bigoted. Why should some faiths, some ideas, be immune from the ordinary battle of ideas? The ability to take each other on, think about what they've got to say and let the good ideas rise to the top. This should not be a strange thing. You know what, they're going to make out they're perfect and pure, that they never hang out with people who do anything wrong. We all know the people that Senator Keneally hangs out with have a fabulous record on corruption. We know that Senator Wong likes to hang out with a bloke by the name of Benjamin Law, who quite happily talks about how he would like to hate F U C K my parliamentary colleague Mr Hastie—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll withdraw it, though I'm not quite sure how I'm—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll happily withdraw it. Though I confess I don't know how I'm supposed to—

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course I withdraw. When there are views like that coming from Senator Wong, and the company she keeps, she is in no position to preach about the way that people treat one another. People would be suggesting that that kind of conduct is an appropriate way to treat other people in this parliament based on their beliefs genuinely held. I am not going to be preached to from people on this side who make out that they are holier-than-thou. They are so muddled headed, so weak in their thinking and so willing to think that anyone who walks into the same room, by definition, has the same beliefs. Any sensible person can see that that defies logic. It makes absolutely no sense. If we are doing our job properly as politicians, we talk to all people and we convey ideas that are right. We don't grandstand and we don't virtue signal, but we do respect free speech.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the speech that we just heard is a perfect example of grandstanding. I raise serious concerns about the fact that a senator from this place thinks it's appropriate to share a platform with a man who's made the most outrageous comments, which were in the question that I put to Senator Ruston.

I want to declare at the beginning that I absolutely believe in freedom of speech. I also believe in freedom of people to manifest their religion, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom to form unions and fight for the rights of hard-working Australians. But I don't believe in freedom to spew hate. That is something I don't believe in.

Senator Stoker would have us believe that this is about having a conversation. We're way past the point of a discussion about ideas when you're standing in a public place, at a platform in the public community, with a man who does not deny that he tweeted a comment into the public space—about the Scottish National Party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, who had recently suffered a miscarriage—that said, 'Can someone just, like … tape Nicola Sturgeon's mouth shut? And her legs, so she can't reproduce.' This man is a public figure with remarks of that kind on the public record. If Senator Stoker really believed that this was a conversation worth having, she could send him a letter. She could get him on the phone. She could have a conversation with him in private if she felt so obliged. But instead she has chosen, in her role as a senator, to stand on a platform with this man.

Yesterday, we had a view that was offered to us by Senator Cormann. Yesterday, this was his view: he condemned that language from Mr Raheem Kassam as 'disgraceful' and 'highly objectionable'. He said yesterday it was 'completely outrageous'. Senator Cormann said yesterday 'I entirely abhor it'. 'I'm sure anyone in this Senate abhors it,' he also said yesterday. But today, he had a different tune. He's indicated, as was reflected in the great contribution from my colleague, Senator Watt, that he's stepping back from that natural abhorrence at what can only be described as hate speech. This government has the capacity to prevent the harm that comes from having voices like Raheem Kassam's broadcast further into our community.

I can tell you what I don't like as an Australian, as a member of the Labor Party and as a senator in this great parliament. I don't like people who vilify those I live in the community with. I don't want to give a platform to voices of hate. I'm up for every decent discussion of ideas, but hate speech is a lot more than just a bad idea and this man is a propagator of hate speech and will be at a forum that will be filled with people who can't wait to hear the kind of hate that he wants to spread. That is not good for our democracy. There is a difference here. It needs to be understood and the line needs to be drawn. But, just as Senator Cormann, in his statement overnight, walked away from that fair, rational and reasonable judgement of Mr Raheem Kassam's statements yesterday, we have a government that is failing to use some of the legislation that they so often crow about. Section 501 of the Migration Act exists so that a minister has the power to refuse the visa of an individual of such a character. The minister can refuse the visa if there is a significant risk that an individual would vilify a segment of Australian community or incite discord or represent danger to them during their time in Australia. This government can act. At the very least, they should counsel Senator Stoker and give her the opportunity to have the conversation that she keeps talking about. But standing on a platform giving a speech and lending the credibility of her role here as a senator to such a man is a failure of democracy. (Time expired)

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For somebody who is so outraged about giving a platform to this man, a man who—thanks very much to Labor's determination to give him a platform—I had to Google, I appreciate enormously that Senator O'Neill has taken the trouble to repeat his comments at least three times this afternoon. If this person did not have a platform before, Labor has done his job for him. It is extraordinary. I think that the Senate has now descended into the same sort of language that she declared to abhor.

I think it is frankly bizarre that this afternoon, once again, the opposition has raised the same issues that we have heard them go on about this week and that the relevant ministers have answered. I understand that members of the opposition might be confused and that they do really believe that these are the issues that are so burningly important to the mums and dads across Australia and even union members across Australia. It would be terrific if they took the same level of interest in the issues facing real people and, importantly, farmers right across Australia. But we know that Labor is not interested in real issues for real people. We know that because, in my home state of Queensland, not only has the Labor government passed unpractical regulations and removed the ability for landholders to manage their land but, on 18 June this year, the Queensland Labor government's trigger maps were labelled a joke after the maps showed Suncorp Stadium, in the middle of Brisbane—and I'm sure the New South Wales members here would be very familiar with Suncorp Stadium—as a high-risk area where endangered or vulnerable plants were present or likely to be present. It seems extraordinary that the turfed area of 'The Cauldron', that highly sacred place for Queenslanders, would have turned up as a high-risk vegetation management area. But we know that Labor are not interested in the real issues for real people, particularly real farmers. In fact, they are doing their very best by banding together with the Greens to ensure that there are no farmers and no food is grown in Australia at all.

They have no understanding or interest in the issues that are important to regional Australia, to the sort of professionalism and innovation that's happening out in the real world, where people have real issues and a real agenda. Unfortunately, Labor has no agenda and, instead, has spent this week, and this question time, again giving a platform to—I'm going to have to look the person up again, because this person had no profile, had no recognition at all in Australia until Senator O'Neill managed to put his comments into Hansard three times this afternoon.

Who can forget the debacle of the recent federal election where the Labor Party took policies to the Australian people, policies that the Australian people told Labor, in no uncertain terms, were not relevant or useful to them. Australia is a wonderful country but, if you listened to Labor, you would think we are quite broken. I can tell you we are not a broken country at all. I can only congratulate the members of the Labor Party for taking what they deem as hate speech and giving it a very high profile. It is unfortunate.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the question I asked Senator Ruston today, a question that Senator McDonald has just referred to as not a 'real issue'—not a 'real issue' that people in Townsville are receiving debt notices despite not having yet recovered from the unprecedented flooding that took place in February. This is an important issue, and I want to do it justice by going through the chronology and making it clear that this is something that needs to be dealt with it and not minced around with.

On 17 July, The Guardian reported that Centrelink had recommenced robo-debt in Townsville despite a quarantine being in place. On 18 July, I met with the Townsville legal centre and confirmed with them that robo-debt had recommenced in Townsville. It's that easy: there was an article, I went to Townsville, I asked if it was happening and I found out it was happening. On 23 July, I asked the minister in the Senate why robo-debt had recommenced in Townsville, and she said that there had been no commencement of debt recovery in Townsville. That was her answer. The same day, though, her department, the Department of Human Services, told the Townsville Bulletin that compliance activities had resumed. I want to make that clear: the department said, on 23 July, that compliance activity had resumed. So, the day after that, I came in again and I gave the minister a chance to explain why, according to reports and firsthand discussions with the Townsville legal centre, people were getting debt letters in Townsville. Again, she assured the Senate that debt recovery had not resumed.

Yesterday I tabled a debt notice from a recipient in—would you believe it?—Townsville who had received a debt letter from Centrelink on 8 July. When we brought that letter to the minister's attention, didn't things start to get a little bit shaky! So today I again asked the minister why a person in Townsville affected by the floods had received a debt notice letter—a demand to pay money now. Again, instead of getting a straight answer, we got weasel words and split hairs. Frankly, it is hard to believe some of the answers that are coming up. The department says one thing and the minister says another, so either of two things is happening here. Either there's gross incompetence happening or there's just complete disregard for the people of Townsville. When faced with this uncomfortable truth, what does the government do? True to form, they deny and they play the person. The minister tried to say that she was extremely disappointed in me.

Minister Ruston and Minister Robert in the other place have unsuccessfully tried to split hairs over what constitutes debt collection. The minister wants people in Townsville to accept that a letter telling a recipient that they owe over $2,000 does not constitute debt recovery. If I get a letter demanding that I pay a debt in four weeks, that sounds like debt recovery to me. Nobody is suggesting that a legitimate debt should not be paid back, but we've got to let this community get back on its feet before sending around debt collectors, particularly when we know that these so-called robo-debts are often incorrectly calculated in the first place.

When we have a look at this chronology, another very important question that is yet to be answered is: where in all of this is the new member for Herbert? Where is he? He's gone missing. This was one of the first tests of his leadership, and he has gone missing when the most vulnerable members of his community need him most. Townsville residents are hurting, and they shouldn't be harassed by the government for debts that they may not even owe. The pursuit of vulnerable, traumatised people receiving Centrelink benefits is, at best, ill-conceived and, at worst, callous. The minister said yesterday that she was extremely disappointed in me. Well, I say this: I am extremely disappointed in the minister and, on behalf of the people of Townsville, I am extremely disappointed in the member for Herbert.

Question agreed to.