Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) | 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.

I want to deal first with the last question, which was asked by Senator Chandler in relation to the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp of Iran, and its proposed listing as a terrorist organisation. I listened very carefully to Senator Watt's answer. The main obstacle to listing the IRGC, which funds and engages in terrorist acts all around the world, as a terrorist organisation is the current law. As I interjected to Senator Watt, there's an issue with the current law. Let's come together and change the law. Rather than simply making a debating point, which he's entitled to make, as to why the coalition didn't previously change the law when we were in government, it should be recognised that there is a need to change the law now.

Our international partners—our closest allies—are declaring the IRGC a terrorist organisation, because it is a terrorist organisation, and that is exactly what we should be doing. If there's an obstacle in the laws as they apply to entities which could be said to be part of a sovereign state, we should change the law, and we should do that collaboratively, in a bipartisan process, rather than simply making debating points. So I recommend that Senator Watt and others on the other side engage in the process in good faith. It is terribly important.

I'd like to also make a few comments in relation to the questions asked by my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator Paterson. Senator Cash and Senator Paterson are entitled to ask the questions they asked, which go to key issues in the evolving crisis in the Middle East. The first is in relation to the role of Hezbollah, which is sitting on a stockpile, in a demilitarised zone in Lebanon, of 120,000 to 200,000 short-range guided ballistic missiles, short- and intermediate-range unguided ballistic missiles and short- and long-range unguided rockets, and they're firing those rockets and missiles into Israel on a daily basis. We on this side of the chamber want to make sure that this parliament expresses a clear message to Hezbollah and its supporters and actors all over the world that we on this side of the house—and on the other side of the house; I'm sure it is shared—stand with Israel and recognise its inherent right to defend itself against these sorts of attacks. And it is incredibly important that we do so in relation to the ongoing threat from Hezbollah.

That was the purpose of the questions asked in good faith by Senator Cash—and she's right to ask those questions, because it's absolutely horrifying that Iran is sitting on the sidelines encouraging Hezbollah to elevate the dispute and to promote its own political interests and ideological extremism in the region. I also note that that bipartisan resolution that members of the government and members of the opposition all voted for says, 'We support Australia's engagement with countries in the Middle East and beyond at all levels in support of the protection of civilians and the containment of the conflict.' It is so incredibly important that this awful, awful conflict be contained to the maximum extent possible. That is why my friend and colleague Senator Cash asked the questions in relation to Hezbollah.

I want to also comment on the question asked by Senator Paterson in relation to the terrorist listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and it was the subject of an article in the Australian in relation to Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities in Australia. Those activities are deeply disturbing. Senator Wong referred to a quote from my good friend Senator George Brandis from 2017. Well, time has moved on from 2017. We're now sitting here in 2024 and, again, we have a responsibility to make the policy decisions that are right for Australia in 2024. In that regard, I note that in mid-January 2024 the United Kingdom declared Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. That was on 19 January 2024, just a few months ago. So, again, Senator Paterson's question is quite legitimate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I make my contribution, I think it's imperative that I let a few people know that 19 years ago today I was elected to the Senate.

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

A great day!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a great day. And in August of that year I took up my seat, right over there where Senator Canavan sits, and I was surrounded by Labor royalty: Senators Steve Hutchins, Robert Ray and John Faulkner. What a crew, the four of us. They were great times. Coming back to the questions that were asked by opposition senators, when I came here, back then, we saw the galleries full of schoolchildren, and you'd be thinking, 'Here's the next generation; what a wonderful feeling to be sitting in this Senate contributing to law and debate that will affect, more so than us now, the generations to come.' I was so thankful to be a part of that.

But I do want to say this. For the last few years, in particular, in this building I've noticed—and I don't know if it's me losing my shine—that some of the commentary and some of the contributions in this chamber are not worthy of people who have been elected to be senators, in my humble opinion. We talk about bringing Australians together. And I believe I can say this without any fear or favour: there is not one senator in this building—well, I hope not—who sat and watched TV back in October of the year before last without feeling sick, when we saw what was happening in Israel. I'd also say that I would hope that not one senator in this building could ever sit back and not feel sick watching what's going on in Gaza and in Israel now. We must also remember this. Some of the commentary that I've heard come from the odd Greens senator in this building is nothing short of vile.

There are families here in Australia who are affected by this conflict on both sides of the argument—the Israelis and the Gazans. I think to myself, about these senators spilling out this spew and bile: how do some of them even sleep at night? Not only that, but I think children and other Australians look to their parliamentary leaders and think, 'These are the people making the laws, whether we agree with them or not, but how are they performing?' It's no different from teachers and how the students look up to them—actually, probably it is a lot different—and in sporting groups with the coaches and the staff.

I want to apologise to the Australian people. I'm sorry for the behaviour of some of our senators in here. They can answer for themselves, Deputy President, and if I step out of line you will pull me in. It hurts me when I hear senators in here yelling into their microphones to protesters, 'Bring your anger when you go to Labor senators' offices or Labor members' offices.'

I come from a background, quite proudly, where I was a very balanced young truck driver. I had a chip on both shoulders—that's a joke, and I know it's not going down too well here. I have been infinitely photographed and quoted and I've been charged off to courts and all sorts of stuff because I believed in the right to protest. But I also believe in the right to protest safely and the right to protest but never, ever to damage anyone else's property. Now we're seeing protesters—and I am not taking sides; I am absolutely in the middle here; the war is horrifying me—in masks in the dark of night, at two or three o'clock in the morning, spray-painting obscenities across members of parliament's offices and painting dummies of dead babies in red paint to insinuate that we're killing babies.

For crying out loud, there are some people in this building that need to really seriously sit down and have a good look at themselves. They think they're so clever that they're starting some form of revolution. In the household I was brought up in, let me tell you this, if my dad—God bless him; I wish he was still around—had caught me sneaking around at two or three o'clock in the morning with a mask on and spraying paint, I reckon he would have booted my backside from Langford where I lived all the way to Cannington Police Station. That's a long way to get a kick in the pants, I can tell you.

I urge all members of parliament—we will have our views, but in my opinion if you're pushing hatred and pushing violence—and I'm not looking at my colleagues over that side of the chamber—you have no right to represent anyone in this fine institution.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to talk about the question of the ban on live sheep exports, but before I do I would like to associate myself with Senator Sterle's remarks. I woke up this morning and went to the Korean War Memorial on Anzac Parade, where it had been graffitied with 'River to the sea' and other slogans like 'Free Gaza'. That has no part in Australia, and I think that's what we're talking about here. It is the wrong thing to do. Well said, Senator Sterle.

Senator Sterle, being a Western Australian, would also know that we have many people here from the Keep the Sheep campaign. A question Senator McKenzie asked Minister Watt in question time regarding live sheep exports was very specific: what scientific evidence did we have to ban the live sheep market? We got, I will say—rarely in this place because it is question time, not answer time—an answer to this. We got the answer that it was an election commitment. 'It was an election commitment' is not the most overly scientific program you can use to stop live sheep, but we have to respect that.

Last time we heard that was about the Voice. What was the reason for the Voice referendum? It was an election commitment. So it seems that everything that's unpopular, everything that fails, will not be scientifically backed up, but it will be justified because it was an election commitment. That is the reason they give. So, to all the people who are here and the thousands of farmers we saw blockading in Western Australia—and for the tens of thousands of livelihoods in Western Australia that will be impacted—you need to know that the basis of the evidence for turning your livelihoods upside down, for putting your future in peril, is an election commitment. I would say the clear answer is that, if it is an election commitment, maybe these people should think about their actions at the next election—if that's the scientific measure for why the government changes policy. All those in Western Australia who are blockading, who are donating and who are travelling here to tell us about what will happen to them can certainly make a change through the way they vote. If they do that, we'll make a change in policy.

The answer went further and mentioned that the market has declined over a period of time. The market declined simply because one significant market pulled away; Saudi pulled away from the purchase of these live animals, but they're coming back because of the world-leading standards we put in around sheep health on the boats. They are measured on the way for their panting and breathing rates, their respiratory rates. Sheep will die—I'm not going to pretend they don't—but Australia has put these standards in place. That made things cost a little bit more, but these markets were coming back in. We had Saudi buying. Kuwait came to us and made representations that they wanted to keep buying these sheep and were committed to this because Australia has the best standards, full stop. It's not that we have 'some' of the best standards, and we're not 'around' the best standards; we are the gold standard for live animal exports. This is the culture that these customers and these areas want. They want live sheep; they want freshly slaughtered sheep. They want these things over there.

And it puts at risk a whole lot of other things. At an election before, their commitment was that they wouldn't ban live sheep, and here they are going ahead and doing it. Then, as we go forward, we've heard, 'We won't ban live cattle exports,' but the cattle share the ships and the space. The cattle that go to the Middle East are always on the boats, so that is another industry, another market, that's in danger. At estimates we saw letters from Kuwaiti government backed institutions, the livestock abattoirs, saying that they want to keep this going, that they want to keep the families and the areas going that Senator Brockman mentioned. This is an industry that is world leading and that supplies protein to a very important part of the world. We hear, 'Yes, but that's just a business.' No it's not; it's a government backed business. The real process of these areas is in their dedication to keeping their food security alive, just as we do with our energy security.

There is no scientific reason for this. We've heard that an RSPCA poll gave some numbers—if you want to believe that. I come from a polling background; somehow I got there. I can write a poll that says anything. I can write a poll that gets any result I want. I can write a poll that says that Collingwood's going to win another championship. I can do anything I want with a poll. An RSPCA poll is a push poll. It is not to be trusted, because it is biased data. It goes through there. I could ask a whole lot of questions about sheep welfare, sheep dying at sea, burials at sea, sheep panting, heat and everything like that, and then, after you support it, I could get the answer I want. So let's not pretend. The people here are being run over for an election commitment. I urge them to change their vote, and we will change the policy.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by ministers to questions asked by coalition senators in question time. In doing so, I want to associate myself very closely with the remarks of Senator Sterle, who was several speakers before me. As I've said many times in this chamber, those who seek to politicise our national security are engaging in a deeply risky business because how we talk about our national security has the potential to affect our national security. Indeed, how we talk about our national security can determine our national security. When we seek to politicise these issues and when senators in this chamber seek to engage in a style of rhetoric which has no place, I believe, in our national debate or in the Senate, that can negatively impact our national security, and that happens through the impact it has on social cohesion.

Every single member of this chamber knows that, in making decisions like the ones referred to in question time today, governments rely on the advice of our intelligence agencies. I don't think it should be the case that anyone in this chamber or outside should suggest that we don't. When it comes to issues like this, it is fully appropriate that our intelligence agencies are engaged and providing the advice and that we are listening to it, because this is important, considered work. It's not work for the debate of this chamber and not work for the political engagement and discussion of the day. This is work for our agencies—really, really important work. That was the process the opposition followed when they were in government; it's the same process we are following now. If you want to start changing such processes on the fly because they suit your political narrative of the day, then I would say that is very, very dangerous business. That is a style of politics which could affect our national security.

I would urge caution in that, in the same way that I would urge caution in the other rhetoric being used in this chamber day after day. It does not just have the potential to impact our social cohesion; it is deliberately trying to upset social cohesion in Australia, which is, in my view, a very dangerous business and a very dangerous game which is causing a huge amount of hurt to people in our community. There are a lot of people in Australia suffering right now. There are many, many Australians with families in the Middle East, and there are many, many Australians who feel deeply hurt and saddened by the conflict in the Middle East. I believe the best thing we can do as a government is to support those communities by supporting a community and a society here in Australia which provides support and refuge to them and which doesn't seek to bring a conflict in the Middle East to the shores of Australia to serve someone's political advantage. That is a dangerous and toxic business. It is hurting our country and it is hurting people within it. It's hurting students on university campuses, children and many, many good people in our country who feel deeply on these issues.

None of those people, indeed no-one affected by the conflict in the Middle East, is served by games and politicking on the floor of this chamber. That will achieve nothing of meaning or substance in the Middle East, and it will only do what it is designed to do, and that is to undermine social cohesion in Australia. It is dangerous, risky business—dangerous actions undermining social cohesion, which I don't believe have any place in this chamber or any place in Australia.

We all have a responsibility in the way we talk about national security because the way we talk about our nation's security affects our nation's security. The way we talk about national security can actually have an impact on our nation's security. Experts will tell you this. People from the intelligence community will tell you this as well. How we talk about these things matters. We should not dive back into playbooks of governments past which sought to politicise and seek an advantage from our national security, and we should not engage in this toxic rhetoric which seeks to undermine social cohesion in our country and is making people in our country less safe. Many, many people are hurting, and too many people in this chamber are playing a very dangerous game. The way we speak about national security matters; it impacts our national security. We should all be cautious in the way we engage with that in this chamber.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been obvious to me for many months, if not many years, that the decision of this Labor government to ban live exports was a political decision. It had nothing to do with any science and nothing to do with any evidence. Now that fact is also very plain to every Western Australian. This political decision to wipe out an entire industry segment from Western Australia, to wipe out farming communities and the economic base of towns, was made by the Labor government, aided and abetted by the Greens and the other crossbenchers who support this ban, on the basis of nothing more than preferences in the eastern states. That's all Western Australia is worth to this Labor government: a handful of preferences in the eastern states. Every bit of science, every bit of evidence, we have shows that this industry not only deserves to survive but also deserves to be congratulated. It has done and exceeded everything that governments have asked it to do.

Never forget for one moment that the problems the industry faces today—this ideological imperative from the government, this ideologically driven crusade against the live export industry—go back to the events on the Awassi Express, which were cash for cruelty. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, were paid to a stockman from a developing country whose salary was US$350 a month. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get footage of sheep suffering. And guess what? He did. One of his shipmates, a person who called him a close friend, described how that footage was taken in questionable circumstances where ventilation may have been shut off. It was cash for cruelty.

Question agreed to.