Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

We did have a lengthy conversation in question time today about the rumoured goings-on at Labor's national conference, which will be held next week. I'm sure it thrills the people of Australia when we come into this place and talk about our parties' national conferences. But I do want to congratulate the national Labor Party for having their conference next week. That's not something that is currently afforded to the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party, so a really big clap for federal Labor, who will all be congregating somewhere next week—I think it might be in Queensland somewhere—and having a chat about the policy issues that are important to them. That's something that my Tasmanian Labor colleagues are not currently able to do. That's a bit of a sad reflection on the state of affairs in Tasmania.

But, like I said, we did reflect on some of the policy motions that are going to be discussed at the Labor conference next week and, in particular, some of the foreign policy motions that are going to be raised at the conference. I think that it is incredibly relevant that we are debating these issues here today because I would like to wind the clock back slightly more than 12 months to when, during the election campaign last year, the now Prime Minister and then opposition leader, Mr Anthony Albanese, said that national security is above politics. He said that his government would be a government that delivers on its commitments and brings our country together as a key element of ensuring a stronger and safer Australia. It's really important to reflect on this quote, because now it is deeply troubling to hear media reports that around 40 branches of the Labor Party are moving to oppose the AUKUS agreement.

The Prime Minister said that national security is above politics, but now we hear that at this national conference next week—and, like I said, I think it's good that the Labor Party can have a conference—there will be members within the party that wish to oppose the AUKUS agreement. It is incredibly concerning that so many within the Labor Party are opposed to this alliance, which is committed to strengthening the national security of this country. The Prime Minister is failing even to bring his own party together to support AUKUS, our most important national security strategy in decades. I think the Prime Minister needs to clarify that his party and, importantly, his government remain committed to AUKUS, and he needs to ensure that the current disunity ahead of the national conference next week doesn't jeopardise our national security and, particularly, the AUKUS agreement.

Why is the AUKUS agreement so important? The government is obligated to protect the people of Australia, and the people of Australia rightly expect that any Australian government, whether Labor or coalition, will do everything in its power to protect our people, our territory and our sovereignty. The AUKUS alliance has been negotiated and designed to provide Australia with the defence capabilities that we need to fulfil that obligation. We, on this side of the chamber, are very proud of the commitment that our government made to AUKUS. That's because we don't know what the future may hold; we don't have the ability to predict the future. But one thing is for certain: we are living in uncertain times.

Prior to February 2022, no-one would have predicted war on the European continent. But here we are, a year and a half on from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and that particular conflict shows no sign of ending any time soon. And this war has had an absolutely devastating impact on the people of Ukraine. Like I said, we're living in uncertain times and it is of vital importance that we, as Australia, are doing everything that we can to ensure our national security. We know that AUKUS plays a very important part in that. Like I said, we, on this side of the chamber, know that AUKUS plays a very important part in that. That's why it is so disappointing that there is clearly an element within the Labor Party—I hope it's a fringe element—that wants to push the government next week to oppose the AUKUS deal. I think that is incredibly disappointing. It is time for the Prime Minister to make a strong statement and say that the AUKUS deal is not going to be under threat—not after the national conference of Labor next week, not ever.

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

I am absolutely delighted with the fascination with the great tradition of the Australian Labor Party to actually undertake debate and—God forbid!—even do it in public, where the people of Australia whom we seek to represent might even get a bit of an indication of the things that we are thinking about, that we are talking about, that we are deciding about, that we are agreeing about and that we are representing our communities about. It's funny that it's the Liberal Party who seem to have a very big problem with that reality.

Political parties that are as well established and function as soundly as the Labor Party have in place processes that allow different views to be put forward. Compare and contrast with the Greens political party, named after a colour, as my colleague Senator Watt said yesterday. Down the far end there, they call for transparency all the time, but they hide everything they do. The Labor Party is a public party. Anybody over 15, you can join us. If you want to be an observer, come and get an observer badge and be part of what's going on in Brisbane. If you want to be there to find out what's going on with AUKUS, start by reading the Prime Minister's comments, which could not be more accurate, clear and certain.

Australia is committed to the technological sharing of the critical new energy resources that are needed to make sure we are strategically placed in our region to do our job to defend our country with those with whom we have alliances. AUKUS has captured the imagination of Australians. People in the Labor Party are Australians. It's captured their imagination. They have questions. They want to know. That's a good thing, the last time I looked. And of course there will be debate in that place, where many of those who have ended up in this place practised their skills of listening to the community, thinking about policy solutions and discussing matters of national importance to make sure that we bring forward a view that is representative of all Australians and is clearly in the national interest.

I was involved with the National Policy Forum, a process that would be surprising to the Liberal Party. It has been going on for months and months, since the middle of last year—a wide-ranging consultation to get all these matters on the public record. Stay tuned, watch what happens at the conference and don't buy into the fear and alarm that are just the standard rhetoric of those opposite. I'm looking forward to conference in Brisbane. I'll be there and I'll be making a contribution, alongside all my colleagues from this place who attend, plus Australians from all around the country who care about politics who have decided Labor is the way in which the country is advanced. They'll be there with me too.

But I don't want to lose the opportunity to make some remarks, in the minute and 25 seconds that remains to me, about the ridiculous question that came from Senator Cash today: 'Is it a one-page document? Is it a three-page document? Is it a seven-page document?' I've read it. I've read it here, to the parliament. It is a one-page document, and it talks about the children. First Nations people love their children, it says. I want to tell you about the powerful education I had on a beach in Elcho Island, from a young Aboriginal girl. She didn't ask me what I did. She came up to me and said hello and asked me: 'Who is your mother? Who is your sister? Who is your brother? Who is your father?' It was all about relationship. It was all about connection. She taught me something very powerful that day about First Nations people: they're connected to the land; they're connected to one another; they're connected to us. They deserve a place in our national founding document as modern Australia. And they deserve a voice. Those children deserve a voice.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm a little bit disappointed that Senator O'Neill—through you, Deputy President—as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel, didn't touch upon Labor's decision to—

The Deputy:

Senator O'Neill has a point of order.

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

The member is reflecting poorly on me and I just seek to advise him that I will be participating in the urgency debate and I will have plenty to say as the chair of the parliamentary friendship group of Israel. So don't be too disappointed; you only have to wait about another hour and a half, Senator.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the point of order?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, I'm not entertaining that. Senator McGrath, just be measured with your comments—and perhaps render an apology, given the explanation from Senator O'Neill.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I wasn't asking you to withdraw.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll withdraw. I'm not going to apologise; I withdraw.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright. Well, withdrawal's a higher—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have many things to apologise for, but not in this particular instance. But I withdraw, and I look forward to Senator O'Neill's contribution defending the right of Israel to exist.

I want to speak about Israel and the West Bank. As someone who went to Israel last year, I saw there was a notable difference between how Israelis, whether they were Jewish or Arabic, operate. They live in a liberal democracy. Everyone is equal. But then you cross over the border into the West Bank, and that liberal democracy, that beautiful rainbow that we all live under, becomes this black cloud, because there is no democracy or freedom in the West Bank. Along with other members of the delegation, I spoke with locals in the West Bank, and I said: 'What would you like me to say to your leaders?' By the way, these are leaders who haven't had an election now for about 20 years, and even that would be offending the Trade Practices Act in terms of what an election is, in the West Bank, because it wasn't a real, free election. And they wouldn't tell me anything, because they were too scared to utter any words of praise or criticism towards the leaders in the West Bank.

So I will strongly defend the right of Israel to exist—strongly defend the right of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East to exist—because we've got to go back to history. I'm currently about to finish, thank goodness, a brilliant book by Antony Beevor; it is called Russia:Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921. I would encourage anyone who happens to be still listening through the wireless or on the TV to read this book, because it is a fascinating history of what happens when a government collapses and what those who do not have the interests of their people at heart—and I'm talking about the Bolsheviks—do to the human spirit. You can compare that to what happens in the West Bank, and in Gaza, where you've got leaders who do not have the interests of their people at heart because it is all about politics; it is all about power. You can compare that to Israel, which is such a boisterous democracy.

I welcome the fact that the Labor Party are coming to Queensland. I would counsel them to perhaps be careful where they park their cars, because 55 cars a day are stolen in Queensland because we've got this crime wave happening under the state Labor government. I would counsel them in terms of their usage of electricity because power prices are going through the roof. And I would say to them that they're possibly paying extra money for short-term rentals because rents are going through the roof. So welcome to modern Queensland, where we've got a state Labor government who are disinterested in the victims of crime and those who are suffering because of Labor's mismanagement of the Queensland economy and the national economy.

What also concerns me is that in the coming months we're going to have a referendum. We don't know the date, because that's apparently a state secret, although Noel Pearson likes to go around the place and say it's on 14 October. It's a state secret when this referendum is going to be held. Also, it's a state secret as to the details of the Voice. Labor just don't want us to know. They want Queenslanders to vote on something, but they don't want them to know the details. You know why? Because they know that the Voice is something that is going to hurt Australia. They know that if Australians found out the truth about the Voice, if they knew the truth about the Voice, they would not vote for it. That's why they're not telling us the information. The Labor Party are treating Queenslanders and Australians like mushrooms. They're keeping us in the dark, and they're loading us up with things that come out of the rear ends of cows, and it needs to stop.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting to hear those words coming out of Senator McGrath about not enough information being out there. Can I outline that there is information out there; you just fail to see it and accept it. Speaking of the Voice to Parliament—that was going to be my last point, but, you know what, we'll bring it forward—and speaking of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it is 440 words, and if you haven't read it and fully understood it, I advise you and encourage you to please read it as you go to your office. It will encapsulate what exactly the delegates, the rank-and-file members, of the Labor Party, at our national conference, are also going to be discussing, along with other national policies and areas important to us all.

Senator Chandler mentioned earlier that we don't know what the future holds, and I agree. At least there's one thing we agree on. We are indeed living in uncertain times, and that's exactly why we're highlighting the importance of an AUKUS agreement—because we understand, the Labor Party understands, the geopolitical importance that Australia has in our region.

Enough about the internal quarrelling that we've seen from those opposite, constantly undermining one another. When it comes to their leadership, we saw what the former Prime Minister did, the former Prime Minister who secretly appointed himself to—how many ministries was that? Six? And what do you say to that? You turn around and ask questions about the integrity and transparency of the way we do things as the Labor Party. Going to our national conference next week, we are a democracy, and we take pride in that. We make sure that when there are debates to be held, when there is open discussion, we want to be a party that listens to every single member.

This is an incredibly big investment—perhaps, as was mentioned earlier, the single biggest investment in our defence capability in history. It's a transformational moment for our nation, because this isn't just creating around 20,000 jobs over the next 30 years; it's ensuring the sovereignty and security of our nation and our people. I do want to reflect on and reiterate what Senator Wong said earlier: that it's about making sure we use all levers of national power, deterrence but also diplomacy, for a stable and prosperous region. If I may say so, that's absolutely slay. National security is above politics. We know how important it is, and that's exactly why we're going to have those discussions. We're going to have the consultation.

Those opposite seem to be very interested in taking a leaf out of our book. Here's a little bit more inspiration if you really are interested and you're keen to keep tabs on what is going to happen in our national conference. We're definitely going to be talking about the importance of the Voice to Parliament. To everyone out there I say: please stop listening to the fearmongering of the 'no-alition', who keep saying no to every progressive policy that we bring to the table. This isn't about playing petty politics; this is about acknowledging and recognising the First Nations people of Australia who contribute to our identity. Their 60,000 years of history, culture and knowledge contribute to our identity as Australians and contribute to the fabric of our society. This is not an act of charity; this is an act of justice. So vote yes in the referendum later this year.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the clocks be set for three minutes. Then I understand One Nation will seek the call for two minutes.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad I have three minutes because I don't know how I could possibly speak for five minutes about the Voice, because there's no detail about the Voice. We don't even know the date the referendum is going to be held. You would think, after 14 or 15 months in government—and all we ever seem to talk about is the Voice, not the cost of living or the real issues that the majority of Australians care about—that the Prime Minister could have, at the very least, set a date for this referendum. I think it's a deliberate distraction and nothing more than virtue signalling to the Marxists who want to divide the country on race rather than focus on the real issue of cost of living in this country.

I took up Senator Payman's offer to read the Uluru statement while I was waiting here, and I just want to touch on this: 'That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia'. It's interesting that, when I was growing up, I was told that the Aboriginals had been here for 20,000 years. Then it got extended to 40,000 years. If you actually look up the oldest known remains of any biped in Australia, it is Mungo Man. The dating on that is disputed, but it's somewhere between 24,000 years and 40,000 years. So what I want to know is: where does the claim for this 60,000 years come from? I'm not saying that bipeds haven't been here for 60,000 years, but the other thing is that, if you look it up, apparently Homo sapiens left Africa 60,000 or 70,000 years ago. Did they cross the Asian mainland and cross the Wallace line to get here, wiping out the Denisovans, Flores Man and whoever else was in Indonesia and wherever?

I find that history very interesting, I have to say, but I just think we're stretching the truth when we try to claim that a particular race has been here for 60,000 years when there's no actual archaeological evidence to prove that. Even with Mungo Man the DNA is disputed and the stratigraphic detail is disputed. The argument is that he was too shallowly in the earth to have been there for 40,000 years. I don't know—I'm not saying I know the answers—but I do know that the goalposts has been shifted in my lifetime from 20,000 years to 40,000 years and then to 60,000 years. Of course, that matters because we've crossed two ice ages in that time. It's more that it's all feelings are no facts.

Anyway, we really need to be focusing on the cost of living. Can we call a date for the referendum? Let's get on with it.

Question agreed to.