Bob Katter

In addressing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which has been referred to in the media as the 'ghost universities bill', I remind the House, as I said when I was speaking earlier in the day on this matter, that the number of people coming into Australia through the student visas is of the order of 400,000 or 500,000 a year. Now, I find these figures pretty hard to believe—that it's that much—but those are the official figures given to me by the departments. There are another 350,000 people coming in on various visas, including the immigration visa. That's nearly a million people a year coming into Australia.

Over a period of 10 or 12 years, if these people have children, and a lot of them have a lot of children, these people will be a majority in this country. Do they come from countries with democracy? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with rule of law? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with Christianity? No. When I say Christianity, I'm not necessarily referring to belief in a god, but I am referring to the underlying principle of Western democracies—that you have a responsibility to your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. That is the essence of Jesus Christ's message that underpins the Magna Carta which underpins most of our laws and was written by the Archbishop Langton, the head of the Christian church in England at the time.

Let me return to the issue at hand. No Christianity, no industrial awards, no democracy and no rule of law. What the hell do you think our country is going to look like if you bring 10 or 15 million of these people into this country? Go down any time of the day or night to a takeaway food place here in Canberra or a late-night pharmacy or any other thing here in Canberra, and see where those people come from. I've even asked them where they come from.

For those who interpret my remarks as being anti-Muslim, I am on record on numerous occasions praising our neighbours, the people of Indonesia. They've been wonderful neighbours to us, much better neighbours than we've been to them. I've found them marvellous people. I've had a lot of interface with them with live cattle issues and I couldn't speak more highly of them. They strike me as very Christian people! They have respect for other people and they have a desire to make the world peaceful and a better place to live in. I'm not talking about them. But there is a group from the Middle East, and I most certainly make no apologies for talking about them.

Having said those things, one of the most senior people in the universities councils of Australia told me 20 years ago that if you stop the universities from being visa shops, then you will close half the universities in Australia. The government figures are so doctored up they are just a joke. The exports and imports figures are now doctored up with sale of student visas. That is regarded as income for Australia! It's not; it's a round robin. They come here, they stay here, they get a job driving taxis or after hours whatever, and they take the job off an Australian. So you get paid on money they've taken off an Australian that had the job before and was probably working to an arbitrated wage. A lot of these newcomers are not working to an arbitrated wage.

There are numerous examples in history where people have let people into their country. You can start right back with the Vandals being allowed into the Roman Empire and the next thing they were sacking Rome itself. I can give a thousand other examples for those of us who read history books. I quoted Winston Churchill, and it doesn't hurt to quote him again, when he said, 'Those that do not understand and know their history will be doomed to once again to suffer that history.' When Hitler invaded Russia, Churchill chortled and said, 'Mr Hitler does not know his history!' He was dead right. Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia, and the Russians kept running away until he was exhausted and starving, half of his troops dead by disease and trying to chase the Russians down. Then Napoleon did exactly the same thing. He went in there with half a million troops and came out with 50,000 troops. You may even quote Wellington in Spain. If you let the Vandals in, don't complain to me when they sacked and raped and murdered half the population of Rome because they weren't given half of the land ownership of Italy. They felt they should be given land grants over a fair proportion of Italy.

You can start their and go to numerous examples of this. Israel itself is a very good example. It was totally Jewish. Then in 1385, Ibn Khaldun—I think was the name of the historian—said he was very surprised to find that Jerusalem was still predominantly Christian and Palestine was still predominantly Christian. Well, there were no Christians there. Within 200 years, there were no Christians there at all. They let people in. They didn't defend their borders and protect their borders. They let people in, and they were booted out, and they became the Jewish diaspora.

For those people that want an example of what happens, Constantinople was the centre of the Christian religion and the centre of the Roman Empire, and now there is hardly a Christian living in that area of the world. Most certainly, in Constantinople you won't find any Christians. Well, you let the people in. You let them in continuously. You did not defend and protect your borders, and then you paid the price. And the price is very, very high indeed.

We have pretty close to a million people a year coming in on student visas that are supposed to go home. Earlier today, I quoted a case when I got in a taxi and asked the taxi driver a little bit sneakily, 'What subject are you doing at university this year?' He said, 'Hospitality.' I think if I asked the question a different way, he might have been a bit sneaky, but I asked it that way, and he said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50 years old, and he had come in as a very young man to Australia. I mean, quite frankly, if you get in on a student visa, you don't go home.

I also quoted earlier today the case of a family who are lovely people. They're an asset to Australia, in my opinion. But, all the same, I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' She said: 'Oh, I just came in on a student visa. They're really easy to get. Anyone who wants to come to Australia just gets a student visa.' I said, 'What about your family?' She said, 'Oh, they come in on the student visa.' There were six people in that family. These people are great assets to Australia, but a lot of these people are anything but assets to Australia. They sit in a big city ghetto. They don't move. They have no desire, it would appear to me, to become part of Australia now or in the future, and that is not the Australian way.

My brother, who I greatly respect, said: 'They talk about multiculturalism. This country has never been multicultural—never. It was always a monocultural country.' These people have run around with this mouthpiece, and we've all been scared, including me, of it being said that I was against multiculturalism. I never used the word when I was the minister responsible in the state parliament, and I won't use it in the future. We want our people to be Australians, and that is not happening. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Patrick Gorman - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick - The question is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Paul Fletcher

I seek leave to move the following motion forthwith:

In noting the agreement of the House to the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier today, the House is of the opinion that recognition must only take place once the following preconditions have been met:

(a) recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

(b) that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

(c) reform of the Palestinian authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

(d) agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

(e) appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders.

Milton Dick

Is leave granted?

Patrick Gorman

The parliament has dealt with this matter. Leave is not granted.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Bradfield from moving the following motion forthwith:

In noting the agreement of the House to the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier today, the House is of the opinion that recognition must only take place once the following preconditions have been met:

(a) recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

(b) that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

(c) reform of the Palestinian authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

(d) agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

(e) appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders.

Mr Speaker, the reason that standing orders must be suspended to allow this motion to be dealt with immediately is as a consequence of the motion that was just moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, because it is very important to establish the appropriate conditions that would need to be met before the state of Palestine should be recognised. Now, you may ask why the opposition feels it's necessary to move this now rather than, as an alternative, engaging with the government in a constructive way in relation to a motion that it proposes to move and nominating the conditions that we consider would be necessary before the motion could be supported. If you were to ask that, I would certainly agree that that would have been a sensible process to engage in and the opposition would certainly have been ready to engage in such a negotiation and discussion process on the merits.

Unfortunately, and for reasons which it must be said are, frankly, mystifying, the government did not attempt to engage in any way with the opposition in relation to the terms of the motion that the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs came into this place to move. There was no attempt to engage in advance on the terms of that motion and no attempt to arrive at what would have been a highly desirable state of affairs, where there was agreement reached across as many members of this parliament as possible on a matter which is undoubtedly one that is provoking great anxiety within the Australian community and which has been the source of much contention and ill feeling. It is a great shame that the government did not seek in any way to engage with the opposition on this matter and seek to arrive at a position which could have been mutually supported, and such an outcome would have been highly desirable in terms of maintaining social harmony and cohesion in our nation, which, of course, is one of the world's most successful multicultural, multiracial, multi-ethnic, multireligious nations. That success is something in which we can all take pride, but it is a success that is not achieved without being continually worked at—worked at, it must be said, by both major parties of government. It is, I think, quite regrettable that the government has conducted itself in the way that it has in relation to the motion that has been moved. It has missed an opportunity to arrive at an aligned position. I can't be confident that an aligned position could have, ultimately, been reached. I can't be confident of that, but what I can be confident of is that if the government makes zero attempt on a matter of such sensitivity and such importance to engage with the opposition in relation to whether an aligned position can be arrived at, that is no way to be conducting itself at a time when these issues are of enormous sensitivity within our community. I think this has been a deeply regrettable missed opportunity.

The opposition believes it is very important that this House should have the opportunity to state very clearly what we believe needs to be satisfied in terms of preconditions in advance of any recognition of a Palestinian state occurring. We believe that's important from first principles, and if I can reference the eloquent remarks from the member for Berowra earlier today, we believe that becomes only more important given the reality that this position, which the government is proposing will be taken by Australia internationally, is a position being taken after the appalling terrorist attacks of October 7, which saw some 1,200 innocent men, women and children killed, and some 200 people dragged away as hostages, some of whom, sadly, subsequently have died and others of whom remain imprisoned in the tunnels under the Gaza Strip. It is impossible to be discussing this issue without a recognition of the events which have preceded it. It is, therefore, deeply regrettable that the government made no attempt to engage with the opposition in relation to the basis on which a motion of this nature could—at least potentially—have obtained the support of both of the major parties of government.

I direct the House to the terms of the procedural motion which the government moved, establishing the terms under which the debate on the motion moved by the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs was held, because those terms did not admit of amendments. They did not allow for a process in which this House could have worked towards a form of a motion which—again, at least potentially, as I cannot say with certainty—had the scope for receiving the support of both major parties of government. I won't speak for anybody else in this parliament, but what is clear is that the way the government conducted itself from the outset was evidently done in a way that showed no appetite for reaching agreement between the two major parties of government on this matter—which is, of course, enormously important when it comes to the position that Australia as a nation takes in international forums. It's also enormously important in terms of the leadership which this parliament is able to demonstrate to the broader community at a time when we have seen troubling instances of social disharmony arising out of different perspectives as to what is occurring in the Middle East. It is a time when we have seen—as this parliament has rightly condemned—the appalling spectacle of war memorials being vandalised, showing remarkable, extraordinary disrespect to all of those who have served and sacrificed for our nation over more than 100 years. It's at a time when we have seen events occurring on university campuses which mean, sadly, that Jewish students have indicated that they do not feel safe, and other students have expressed concern that their lectures have been interrupted by political activists seeking to press them to take a particular position on the events in the Middle East. We of course saw the extremely troubling events on the forecourt of the Opera House only a few short days after the 7 October terrorist attack, when we saw people saying terrible things about the Jewish people. We saw a real sense of breakdown in public order and troubling instances of Jewish Australians being advised by the police not to be out in public.

These are enormously important issues; this is urgent, and so therefore I moved the motion which I have just articulated.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Julian Leeser

I second the motion. In fact, I think there has probably not been a more important suspension of standing orders motion that I have spoken on than this one. It is so important that we immediately correct what has gone on in the House with the previous motion. What we have now is a very untidy circumstance, where we have one motion that has been passed in this House that recognises a Palestinian state without conditions, and we have another motion that was passed in the Senate which reflects the work of my friend the Manager of Opposition Business in adding these amendments. I would jealously defend the rights of this House, but we need to think about who is putting this motion together in the Senate.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate is the foreign minister. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is the shadow foreign minister. Together, they worked on this motion and put together a series of conditions which reflect, more or less, a traditional Australian foreign policy position on Israel-Palestine. Without these conditions we're seeing what I spoke about in the previous debate, which is a growing gulf between the government and the opposition in relation to Israel and in relation to the Jewish community. As a Jewish Australian I decry that.

I would like to see a bipartisan position in relation to Israel and Palestine. The position that we on this side of the House have held on these issues has reflected the longstanding tradition of bipartisanship on these issues. Fundamentally, that is that you can't have a Palestinian state without Palestinians recognising Israel's right to exist, and that is the first condition that's in this motion put forward by my friend the Manager of Opposition Business. This motion clarifies that there should be no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state. This motion also acknowledges the realities on the ground; people might like the idea of a Palestinian state, but we have a Palestinian authority in the West Bank that has not had an election for decades. And we know that if an election were held there, Hamas would win that election, so we would have the same issues there. The basic conditions of a stable state are not able to be met, and that's why it's important that we have points in the amendment that relate to the reform of the Palestinian Authority being achieved, including major security and governance reforms. It's important that we have agreed processes to resolve final status issues, including state borders and rights of return; these should be spelled out as a clear condition of Australian foreign policy. And there should be appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security between recognised borders.

This very same motion, the motion put forward by my friend the Manager of Opposition Business, was put forward only last Tuesday in the Senate. It beggars belief that the foreign minister's own assistant minister didn't come to the House, if they wanted to move this motion, and have as the starting point the same motion that was handed out in the Senate. This speaks to me of a motion that was dreamed up on the back of an envelope five minutes before the assistant minister came into the House. I think on an issue of such sensitivity, that is a great shame.

I think that the tensions in the community at this point on these issues are completely unprecedented. The antisemitism that I have seen and, indeed, the failure of people in authority to do anything about antisemitism have created a massive sense of abandonment among Jewish Australians. I have to say that I have been very disappointed this government hasn't taken up the offer of a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campuses. There's also no evidence that this government has provided any directions to the Australian Federal Police to take a tougher line on antisemitism. There was lots of talk about doxxing laws as a result of the doxxing of Jewish artists and creatives. We've seen nothing on that. There has been lots of talk from this government about an envoy on antisemitism. Again, months have passed, and we've seen nothing. There's been talk about strengthening laws, and, again and again, we've seen nothing. We just get motions and empty words.

I think the motion that was just passed, without these clear conditions, undermines social cohesion in this country. It undermines an attempt to get bipartisanship on this issue, and that's why I say to those opposite that it is actually worthwhile thinking about supporting this motion—if nothing else, to bring the House into line with the Senate, the place where the two principal spokespeople for foreign policy for the government and the opposition sat and hammered out these words only a week ago.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Tim Watts - I move: That this House endorses the Government's position to support the recognition of the State of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

The Australian government makes foreign policy for our nation. The Australian government recognises states. But I move this motion today on behalf of the Australian government because the Greens and others are deliberately misleading the Australian public about the government's position on recognising a Palestinian state. The Albanese government has been clear that we will recognise Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. We want to see a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. No Australian government has ever expressed such strong support for a Palestinian state. This is reflected in what we tried to put to the Senate last week. We are doing more than just lecturing and condemning people; we are working with countries around the world that want a just and enduring peace in the region.

In the recent vote at the UN General Assembly, 143 countries, including Australia, expressed an aspiration for Palestinian membership of the UN. Australia and a number of other countries, including, Germany, the UK and Canada, have shifted our position so that recognition of a Palestinian state is no longer seen as being the end point of negotiations. To help realise a Palestinian state, we have asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to look at what role Australia can play in supporting reform of the Palestinian Authority so that it can deliver on the needs of the Palestinian people.

The conflict in the Middle East has spanned our entire lifetime. The fact is that the Albanese government is working with the international community to create momentum for a lasting peace in the form of a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The foreign minister has been clear in what we want to see in progressing a two-state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. Firstly, we see no role for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Secondly, a Palestinian state cannot be in a position to threaten Israel's security. Thirdly, we want to see a reformed Palestinian governing authority that is committed to peace, that disavows violence and is ready to engage in a meaningful political process.

There needs to be serious progress on security and governance reforms and the final status of core issues such as Jerusalem, and the borders of a future Palestinian state should be determined through direct negotiations. But we emphasise that there is no long-term security for Israel unless it is recognised by the countries in its region. The normalisation agenda that was being pursued before October 7 cannot proceed without progress on a Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia has said that there will be no diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised. We also know that recognising a Palestinian state undermines Hamas and undermines Iran—and Iran's other destructive proxies in the region. Peacemaking is hard. It requires real leadership by serious people. It requires those of us who are not central players in this conflict to support those who are in the hard work of progressing a two-state solution to this conflict. We know that this is the only way to break the cycle of violence.

I note that some members of the Greens are walking away from a two-state solution. Presumably, that is because some members of the Greens think that there should be no State of Israel, just as some in the opposition think there should be no state of Palestine. We even saw Senator Sharma, who should know better, hosting an event in Parliament House for extremists who are campaigning against a two-state solution. These fringe views in the Greens and the opposition condemn both Palestinians and Jews in the Middle East to endless war and suffering. They also seek to position Australia outside the international community that is building momentum on Palestinian recognition and a two-state solution. Presumably, this is why they joined together to reject Labor's amendment in the Senate recently. What matters in the region is the actions of governments, not political games in parliaments on the other side of the world.

While Australia is not a central player, we have a respected voice and we are using it to advocate for a ceasefire, for the protection of civilians, for increased humanitarian assistance and for the release of hostages. When I travel to the region and speak to representatives of countries that have influence in the region, they are completely oblivious to these political stunts. My counterparts in those countries don't raise Senate motions with me, let alone failed Senate motions. Instead, they welcome the constructive role that the Australian government has been playing since October 7.

Since the start of this conflict, I have used the Australian government's respected voice to make our case in Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. What the people I have met with in these countries care about are the substantive actions of our government. I can tell you that our actions are respected as constructive contributions to minimising the human suffering from this conflict and for promoting a peace process and a two-state solution. We are using our voice in international institutions and forums.

It is more than six months since Australia voted with 152 countries for a ceasefire at the United Nations. In May Australia supported expanded Palestinian rights to participate in UN forums and the General Assembly's aspiration for eventual Palestinian membership of the United Nations, consistent with a two-state solution. We have also joined with our partners to amplify our voice at prime ministerial level alongside Canada and New Zealand in December and February, alongside the UK defence and foreign ministers in March and alongside foreign ministers from the UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and other partners in a letter to Foreign Minister Katz in May, opposing Israel's operation in Rafah. We have pushed for safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access and contributed to the international humanitarian response: committing $72.5 million to address urgent needs arising from the conflict in Gaza and the protracted refugee crisis; delivering ADF aerial delivery parachutes for use in humanitarian assistance airdrops by Jordan and the UAE; supporting the UN humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator's work on aid coordination and deconfliction in Gaza; and we have pressed the Netanyahu government directly, publicly and privately.

The foreign minister has written to her counterpart, including following the shocking and unacceptable strikes in Rafah. Australia's ambassador has made representations to senior Israeli officials on numerous occasions. Our senior officials have made representations to Israel's ambassador in Canberra. We have used our voices in dozens of engagements with foreign counterparts, including those with influence in the region. We have been consistent and clear in our call for international law and international humanitarian law to be upheld, including the protection of civilians.

We've been calling for restraint from the very start. We've been securing the passage of a parliamentary motion calling for the protection of civilian lives and observance of international law in October 2023. We've been clear in our respect and support for the independence of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. We will deny anyone identified as an extremist settler a visa to travel to Australia. This is what Labor governments achieve.

Since coming to office, and well before the current conflict started, the Albanese government has taken steps to support a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. We have affirmed that settlements are illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to peace. We have adopted the language of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, consistent with the approach taken by key partners. We reversed the Morrison government's decision to recognise West Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, reaffirming Australia's longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations.

We doubled the Australian government's core funding to UNRWA, from $10 million to $20 million, and we've called out unilateral actions that undermine the prospects of peace in a two-state solution, including terrorism, violence and incitement, settlement activity, settler violence, demolitions and displacement. We've done that because Labor governs for all Australians. We're a party of progress, not a party of protest. We listen to all Australians and we represent all Australians. We don't talk for some Australians; we don't simply represent some Australians. We represent everyone. We seek to bring Australians together in challenging times, not to divide them in pursuit of short-term political gain.

Our foreign policy begins with our identity, it begins with who we are. Australia is a country where half of us were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. We're a diverse and pluralist society, a society where necessarily, understandably we will disagree, but we're a society, we're a nation where we will continue get along. We will need to live together, side-by-side, with people who have different views to us in our workplaces, in our sporting clubs, in our schools and in our communities. We need to be able to disagree respectfully and retain our cohesion as a nation. That takes leadership, and that's what this government is providing here, at home and in the region where this conflict is occurring.

In this motion I invite the chamber to join with the government in this effort, to join in providing the leadership that we need for peace building in the Middle East and for social cohesion here at home.

Paul Fletcher

On 7 October, 1,200 innocent men, women and children were murdered at the hands of the murderous terrorist organisation Hamas in Israel. Israel is the only multiparty democracy in the Middle East. It is a longstanding ally and security partner of Australia, and this country has consistently voted with a range of like-minded nations in the United Nations on a range of matters in relation to Israel, recognising the fundamental democratic values that the state of Israel embodies and recognising that it is very important to send a clear message to those who are supporting and encouraging murderous terrorist activities.

What we have seen from the government just now is a motion that has been moved with no notice to the opposition. The assistant minister has scuttled into this place to move this motion without bothering to give any notice to the side of the House, showing contempt for the millions of people who are represented by those of us on this side of the House on a matter of such extraordinary sensitivity in our community, at a time when there is, across our community and across our nation, a significant component of our population that feels unsafe. What we have seen is a conspicuous failure of leadership by this weak Prime Minister and by this weak government, and we have seen that consistent pattern repeated by the assistant minister. If this was something they were proud of, they would have notified the opposition, but they have not bothered to do that. You have to ask, 'What is going on here?'

What is going on here, very clearly, is a government that has abandoned longstanding principles on the basis of short-term political considerations. I say to the government, to every member of this House and to every Australian: if we have just seen a murderous terrorist attack with 1,200 innocent men, women and children killed and some 200 people taken hostage, some of whom are still kept in the tunnels under Gaza, all of us want to see a secure and lasting peace, and the way that peace is to be achieved is in the hands of the murderous terrorist thugs who control Gaza. It is in the hands of the murderous terrorist organisation Hamas. What we have just seen from this government, from this weak Prime Minister, is a decision to reward terrorism and to reward terrorists. That is what we have just seen from this weak government and this weak prime minister.

Milton Dick

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The Assistant Minister for Financial Services?

Stephen Jones

I ask that the member withdraw.

Milton Dick

There is far too much noise for me to hear what the Manager of Opposition Business was saying, so I am going to ask him to assist the House and withdraw so the debate can continue.

Paul Fletcher

I withdraw. I make the point that when a nation of Australia's standing makes a decision as to what we do globally, it sends a signal, and the signal that this government is sending and the signal that this House of Representatives is being asked to endorse is that we are rewarding terrorism, we are rewarding the lawless, murderous, terrorist organisation Hamas. This is what this government is proposing, and this side of the House believes that should be acknowledged.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! Members on my right, I want this debate to be done respectfully. People are interjecting outside of their seats. If you want to interject, you may return to your seat. Do not interject if you are not in your seat. If you do so, you will not be here for the vote. I give the call to the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth.

Long debate text truncated.

Julian Leeser

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) private Members' business order of the day No. 22 relating to the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 being called on immediately;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill continuing for a period of no longer than one hour, with the time for each speech limited to 10 minutes;

(3) questions then being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to;

(5) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

Standing orders must be suspended in order to urgently consider the private member's bill to establish a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. The Prime Minister must stop his attempts to shut down debate on this issue of antisemitism, as the government has done repeatedly and as recently as this morning, with coalition attempts to condemn the desecration of our sacred war memorials that were daubed with anti-Semitic slogans. This is the third time I have sought to bring on debate on this bill. It's been a week since the last time I sought to have the House consider this bill and almost a month since I first introduced it. That is long enough for the Prime Minister have thought about it and considered it. It's time he acted and allowed debate on this issue.

Semester 2 is now less than a month away. The antisemitism which has been rife on campus for years before 7 October and has only escalated since that time cannot be allowed to continue. Since I first introduced this bill to the House, antisemitism in Australian universities has become worse. Just last week, I met with Jewish university staff and Jewish university students who implored me to continue this fight. Every day, non-Jewish university administrators, academics and even university council members contact me and tell me to keep going with this bill, and we have to keep going. We have Jewish academics leaving the sector. We have Jewish students leaving their courses. These aren't isolated incidents, and they're not without precedent. We know that what happens on campus today affects the culture of Australia tomorrow.

I think one of the worst things we have seen is the University of Sydney's appeasement of the extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. This should ring alarm bells for the Prime Minister, for the defence minister, for the education minister, for the Attorney-General and, indeed, for every member of this House. Australian universities will play a critical role in delivering AUKUS. At a time when we need our best and brightest minds to develop the research capabilities Australia needs for our defence and security alliances, Sydney university has forfeited its right to participate. Sydney university's capitulation to extremist groups is so alarming. The idea that groups linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir will now have a seat at the table, running the ruler over Sydney university's defence contracts, beggars belief.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a group that has been listed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and in Germany and banned in many Muslim countries. In doing deals like this, Australian universities are risking our security and our international relationships. Sydney university's actions have been condemned by a coalition of Jewish groups, including the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. In a joint letter to Sydney university, the Jewish group said:

Based on our interactions to date, we have lost confidence in the capacity of the University to provide for the physical, cultural and psycho-social safety of Jewish students and staff members. This is not just our view. We have been made aware that several academic staff, some of them leaders in their fields and employees of long standing, have already notified the University of their decision to leave the institution. We have also been informed that a number of Jewish students are now considering shifting to other Universities.

We have also rejected the University's offer, extended to us after an agreement had been reached behind our backs, to participate in the proposed process to review the University's investment and research activities. The process is in our view a sham and we will have nothing to do with it. We encourage all individuals and groups of standing likewise not to engage with or lend credibility to such a fundamentally flawed process.

We continue to explore all options to ensure the safety and wellbeing of students and staff at the University of Sydney and stand ready to provide support and assistance to Jewish students and staff at the University, as well as those who now wish to leave the University.

The bullying behaviour of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the encampments is all part of a broader movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel—an antisemitic movement that seeks to judge and treat Israel by different standards than any other nation. A movement that had died in Australia that has been given new life by the inaction of vice-chancellors, and now it's spreading to other areas of Australian society because of that inaction.

With council elections only weeks away, Sydney city council and Sydney's lord mayor, Clover Moore, are looking for relevance. Instead of focusing on delivering the services a council is responsible for, the lord mayor has embarked on a foray into foreign policy, with a BDS campaign against Israel. The lord mayor has looked at Sydney university's weakness and capitulation to extremist organisations. She's looked to Canberra and seen the complete lack of leadership coming from this government. Now, empowered, she too can join the antisemitic BDS crusade.

The apathy towards antisemitism in Australia is startling, and it's having a damaging impact right across our country. Last weekend, not far from here, memorials dedicated to honouring the lives and service of Australians at war were vandalised with antisemitic slogans like 'from the river to the sea'. If you fail to address this issue in hotbeds like universities, the consequences in other areas of our society are inevitable. A judicial inquiry is the only way we can get to the bottom of the scourge of antisemitism infecting our universities. It's the only way witnesses will feel safe enough to divulge their experiences, free from retribution. It's the only way that university chancellors and vice-chancellors will be cross-examined and held to account for their failure to act at universities. It's the only way we will receive findings and recommendations to deal with an issue that's been plaguing the sector for years.

Rather than having a standalone judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, the government's current policy is to have a general antiracism inquiry conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Australia's Jewish community has no confidence in the Australian Human Rights Commission, with antisemitism rife among its staff, and its commissioners turning a blind eye to the antisemitism infecting our country. This House should have no confidence in the Human Rights Commission. An organisation riddled with an apparent disregard for the human rights of Jewish Australians is no place for an inquiry of this kind.

It is interesting to me that the only commissioner of the Human Rights Commission that has made any speech condemning antisemitism since 7 October is Lorraine Finlay, the one commissioner whose appointment was repeatedly attacked by this Attorney-General, while his hand-picked Race Discrimination Commissioner cannot bring himself to admit that 'from the river to the sea' is a violent phrase. Where is the Attorney-General, the minister responsible for the benighted organisation which is the Australian Human Rights Commission? He's said practically nothing about the rampant antisemitism on our campuses or the systemic racism against Jews which exists at the Human Rights Commission.

Enough is enough. Antisemitism on our campuses is out of control, and we are now only weeks away from the resumption of classes for semester two. That's why standing orders need to be suspended so that this House can consider the bill so that all members of this House will have the opportunity to stand with Australia's Jewish community and stand against antisemitism on campus.

We know universities are ground zero for antisemitism and we are now seeing it filter into other aspects of life. We have seen it in the horrific terrorist attacks on the offices of members of parliament, in particular the member for Macnamara's electorate office. We are seeing a situation across the board where MPs and their staff are unsafe in their offices. This is not normal. This is not okay. This complete breakdown of law and order seems to be accepted by some, encouraged as it is even by some members of this House, especially the Australian Greens.

I ask the Prime Minister and all those opposite: What will it take? What else needs to happen for them to be convinced that antisemitism in Australian universities is rife and has the potential for devastating consequences? What will it take to convince them that antisemitism in Australian universities deserves a proper inquiry conducted by an independent jurist rather than the kangaroo court that is the Human Rights Commission? I also ask those opposite: do they want to be the ones regretting not having taken a stand when they could have?

This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership and send a message to Australia's Jewish community that he's actually serious about dealing with antisemitism in the way that the Jewish community has demanded: with a standalone judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus.

Throughout last year, the Prime Minister repeatedly quoted the Jewish sage Hillel when he said the words: 'If not us, then who? If not now, then when?' Let me ask the Prime Minister the same question about the judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus: if not you, then who? If not now, then when?

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace

I second the motion. There was a recent university survey done by the Social Research Centre that showed 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students have experienced antisemitism at university—64 per cent. Over half of all Jewish students, 57 per cent, have hidden their identity at university to avoid antisemitism. Three-quarters, 76 per cent, of Jewish students would be more confident about making complaints if their university adopted a definition of what antisemitism is.

We have seen some of the most grotesque actions by those who would seek to bring the Jewish community down, not just in Australia but across the world. In particular, the ground zero of where we've seen it is at these so-called place of enlightenment. We've seen it at these so-called places of enlightenment not just in Australia but across the world, the Western world.

But let's just concentrate on Australia where we, in this place, can make a difference. The member for Berowra has moved this motion on three occasions, and, on each occasion, the government has effectively gagged this motion. I say that is atrocious. That is appalling. This is an opportunity for the government to show leadership. This is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it supports the more than 100,000 Jews living in Australia.

I was at a function in Sydney a couple of weekends ago and I met a young gentleman in his early 30s. I didn't know him from a bar of soap. He came up to me, he hugged me and he said his name. He said, 'I just want you to know: thank you for what you're doing in relation to Israel.' He started to tell me about how his grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust. He said, 'I just want you to know this is the first time in my life where, as a Jew, I have felt unsafe in Australia.' He told me, 'I am seriously, seriously considering moving my family to Israel.' This guy was very intelligent. He was telling me that he is thinking about moving to Israel. I had another gentleman, who is a principal of a school, speak to me. Guess what? He has probably already moved now. He was telling me that he and his wife are moving back to Israel because they felt safer living in Israel—in a war zone—than living in Australia.

How could we have got this so wrong? In our universities, the places of so-called enlightenment, people like Mark Scott, vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney, are saying, 'This is a matter of free speech.' How could we have got this so wrong? It reminds me of the Greens saying, 'Well, it's okay to deface our war memorials because that's a matter of free speech.' What is happening to this country?

Last night I spoke about how the far left are now so aggressively hating on the Jewish community and the far right are so aggressively—and have been for many years—hating on the Jewish community. We've got the far left and the far right coming up around the back and meeting. We are losing our way in this country, and we are losing our way because of the lack of leadership in this country. This country needs a leader who will stand up and say: 'Enough is enough. This is unacceptable.' Jews, no matter where they are—whether they're at university, at work, at schools or on the playgrounds—have just as much right to an education and to live life as every other Australian.

Long debate text truncated.

Jason Clare - We condemn the desecration of this sacred Australian site. I move: That this debate be adjourned.

Opposition members: Shame!

Milton Dick: The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender, Coalition.

Phillip Thompson

I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Herbert from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protesters which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.

We must suspend standing orders to bring on this urgent debate. This is a matter of significant importance. It is our responsibility to the community, as a parliament, to debate these serious topics here in this nation's parliament. We must call out and condemn these disgusting acts, this despicable behaviour, and that's why we are calling on this suspension.

Saturday night's attacks were not an exercise of free speech but of criminal behaviour. The Australian National Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam Forces National Memorial, the Australian Army memorial: no cause gets the right to desecrate our most sacred sites. There has been outrage throughout the community. People are rightly upset. And I'm sorry to all of our Defence Force members, our veterans and their families that they had to witness such disgusting, such despicable acts that have occurred not just in the nation's capital, but around this country. No cause gives you the right to desecrate these sites. It does not represent the community's attitude towards our ADF, our veterans or their families.

The freedoms that we enjoy in this nation are on the back of hard fought battles, wars and sacrifice that those in uniform, those that have served and their families have made. To turn on the TV or to wake up in the morning and open the paper to see this criminal activity—vandalism, spray-painting, the desecration of the Australian War Memorial and other war memorial sites—is not just a kick in the guts to every veteran; it's a slap in the face to the Australian public, who believe in the rule of law and freedom of speech. This should never occur in this country or anywhere else around the world. And I don't believe it has been condemned enough in this parliament. I don't believe that we have had time to debate this, to call out this behaviour and to say, 'We stand as one, because this behaviour needs to stop.'

The veterans community is rightly angry. From the time the first person would have seen this disgraceful vandalism, my phone, my social media, even my door being knocked on, like many other people in parliament—from veterans who are angry, who are disgusted and who are sad that this has occurred.

Here's what a few veterans have had to say. One said: 'We should be proud of all of our veterans and those who have served. Those who desecrate memorials should be jailed. This does not fall under freedom of speech.' A veteran's son said: 'As the son of a Kapyong veteran, I'm disappointed that people have no respect for the personnel that put on the uniform in our armed service.' Another veteran said: 'It's so sad that these people who have fought, died for our freedom—and this is the thanks that they get. I try not to hate anything, but I do hate the people who desecrate war memorials. This is disgraceful. I do not stand for those who have desecrated these war memorials. People have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and they deserve respect. This makes my blood boil. And, as I come from a proud family of ex-ADF personnel, I want to say thank you to those who have served.' These are just some of the messages that I and others in this parliament have received.

I took a phone call only yesterday where the mother of a veteran was in tears—in tears because the one place that is the most sacred for all that have served has been desecrated. She said to me, 'Stand up. Be counted. Call this out.' That's why this suspension motion to bring on debate must happen—because I do not believe that yesterday's gag on the debate, shutting it down, as we saw, was in the national interest. We want to see both sides of parliament stand up and be given the opportunity to call out this disgraceful attack on our veterans and on the community, and call out the antisemitism that has been on display. We must debate this. We must.

This has hit our veterans community extremely hard, and I think that it's right to say that they expect more from us. We have a responsibility to our communities and the people that we represent. This is the nation's national parliament. We must condemn these disgusting acts, and yesterday's move to gag debate, to shut down the discussion, is abhorrent. To say there was no time—it took 25 minutes from the first mover to when the debate was gagged. You cannot tell me that you have no time to stand up and condemn these disgraceful, despicable acts. And every single speech from a government minister, including the defence minister, should say, 'We stand as one in this parliament,' because that's not the message that the Australian people saw yesterday. It shouldn't be concerning for the government, because this is the same wording in this suspension as Senator Lambie's motion in the other place on Monday.

We want debate to occur because our veterans, this country, want to see us standing as one in condemning the disgrace of the Greens, the disgrace of their commentary of late, saying that desecrating the Australian War Memorial is somehow a part of their free speech, somehow a part of free speech. They are not fit to sit in parliament and they are not fit to co-govern with the Labor Party. They are a disgrace. And because you cannot call them out, because you cannot stand up and debate this with us today, that is why a second suspension has been brought on. I would have thought that yesterday was the time for when the opposition and the government could stand as one and say that the despicable commentary from the Greens, the kick in the guts to all the veterans from their commentary, should be rightly condemned. But we didn't see that. We saw debate be gagged, shut down, not discussed. That is disgraceful, an absolute disgrace.

These individuals, these people in the Greens movement who are justifying this as a form of expression are despicable. They are deeply disrespectful to the memories enshrined in those on the War Memorial. More than 100,000 names are etched on the War Memorial. Some of them are my mates, and I can tell you, every time I hear about the War Memorial being desecrated, vandalised, it makes my blood boil then it makes me so angry when I see people coming into parliament saying, 'This is a part of free speech.' Garbage. It is not a part of free speech. You are a part of the problem. That antisemitic and disgraceful vandalism that we have seen at war memorials needs to be called out because I will tell you who chants, 'from the river to the sea': Hamas, a terrorist group.

To see the Prime Minister come in here and say, 'It is okay because Jewish people as well as people from Palestine both say "from the river to the sea".' That is not what the Jewish community has been telling me and they are rightly angry. This is a debate that needs to come on. We need to have this discussion now. We do not believe it is in the nation's interest to be gagged like we saw yesterday with the motion from the member for Canning. We need harsh penalties. I want to see these scumbags, these criminals who are doing this desecration in handcuffs. I want to see them off the street and put in jail. This is not good enough. Bring on debate.

Ian Goodenough

Is the motion seconded?

Keith Wolahan

I second the motion. We have patriots on all sides of this chamber—

An honourable member: Correct

We certainly do, and we have patriots who have served in uniform on all sides of this chamber. We have heard, again and again, calls from both sides to lean in to bring in our nation together because we can all agree it has never been more divided than it is now. Here is an opportunity to lean in and focus on the thing that unites us more than any other—our war memorials—because when you go to the war memorials you will notice a list of names. There is no rank. There is no race. There is no religion. There is no party-political identification. They don't even have honours and medals because the purity of their name and who they were as humans matters, and on that War Memorial are many thousands of people who were not born in this country. On that War Memorial are Christians and Jews and Muslims and, but for the bravery of people of every faith, there would be many more. I know, as the member for Canning and the member for Herbert know, we saw firsthand the bravery of people of Islamic faith who fought side-by-side with us, and many of us would have been added to that War Memorial but for their bravery.

So this motion, which you have notice of, is about focusing in on what unites our nation, not what divides us, because this is about acknowledging the people who said, 'This is not just a piece of dirt surrounded by water; it is a nation that stands for something. It is a nation with fighting for.' We acknowledge the service, sacrifice and unbearable grief of the families who had to walk into bedrooms and know that their sons had given up all their tomorrows for our today.

Humans aren't very good at comprehending large numbers. Imagine what 103,000 young men looks like. Go to the MCG. Stand there and know that, in one morning, 640 from Gallipoli took a seat. In 24 hours, fewer than 2,000—1,917—from Fromelles took a seat. Those were the deadliest 24 hours in Australian history. That's half of the Ponsford Stand. Seven-thousand seats were filled from the Somme, the other half filled from Pozieres. Those who died at Bullecourt are 2,000. Over 2½ months, Passchendaele saw 12,000 young Australians pay the ultimate sacrifice. That's 12 per cent of the honour role in 2½ months. By the end of World War I, when our population was a lot less than it is now, 61,000 Australians had died. That's a significant percentage of the MCG for a small population. In World War II, we saw days where 50 rows were filled from the Montevideo Maru. People from both parties, including the member for Canning, have relatives who went down in that sinking. In seven minutes, we saw 1,054 die. That's one per cent of the honour role. Then, in Korea, 340 died. In Vietnam, 523 died. In Afghanistan, 47 died, including friends of those on both sides.

And what of those left behind? We have an MCG of dead Australians who died for this country, but imagine an MCG full of mums, another MCG of dads, many, many more of those who were injured and wounded and those who we have heard from the royal commission took their lives. ANZAC Day and war memorials are not about glorifying war. They are about acknowledging who we are, who they were, what they did, what they gave up and what they left behind. But, as the sun comes up on ANZAC Day and every other day, we don't just acknowledge the grief of what was lost; we acknowledge what they fought for, and we do that with smiles on our faces. We do that thinking of their last memories of home—and all of them had a last memory of home. It would have been a happy one of their family, their friends, their mum and dad and a place that stood for something—a place that still does. It's a place worthy of them and a place worth fighting for. When we stand up at citizenship ceremonies, these war memorials are for every new Australian, every Indigenous Australian, every Jewish Australian, every Islamic Australian and every Christian Australian. It's about what unites us, and we ask you to join us in this motion.

Jason Clare

We condemn the desecration of this sacred Australian site. I move:

That this debate be adjourned.

Opposition members: Shame!

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the debate be adjourned.

Mark Butler - I move: That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick - The question is that debate be adjourned.

For votes: Labor.  

Against votes: Spender.

Andrew Hastie

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Canning from moving the following motion:

That this House:

(1) condemns defacing any war memorial monument in Australia for any reason at any time; and

(2) further condemns the defacing of the Australian War Memorial on June 14 and the Korean War, Vietnam War and Army memorials on ANZAC Parade in Canberra on Saturday with language including the violent 'from the river to the sea' slogan.

There are around 4,000 to 5,000 war memorials across Australia that have been erected to honour and commemorate Australia's war dead over the last century. Small grieving towns and large cities alike erected these memorials in the wake of the calamity of the First World War. Sixty thousand Australians perished in the First World War, a huge number of men killed for such a young and relatively small nation. Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey, in his A Shorter History of Australia, put it like this:

Perhaps the most drastic effect of the war would never be enumerated: it was the loss of all those talented Australians who would have become prime ministers and premiers, judges, divines, engineers, teachers, doctors, poets, inventors and farmers, the mayors of towns and leaders of trade unions, and the fathers of another generation of Australians. It was a war in which those with the gift of leadership, the spark of courage, and the willingness to make sacrifices often took the highest risks. A young nation could not afford to lose such men.

Geoffrey Blainey wrote that that's why we responded in the way we did, with so many memorials across our great country. He continued:

No nation in Europe showed such a visible desire to remember, to honour.

We've added to those memorials with subsequent wars. We fought in the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and, more recently, the Afghan war. All those wars, sadly, have led to the loss of more Australian men and women in service. We have 103,000 war dead remembered on those memorials across this nation. It's a reminder that this nation has sacrificed greatly and has borne the cost of war.

That's why the Australian War Memorial was built and opened on Remembrance Day in 1941 and why Anzac Parade was opened on Anzac Day in 1965 by Sir Robert Menzies. Anzac Parade is lined with memorials on both sides: the Hellenic Memorial, the Kemal Ataturk Memorial, the Army, Navy and Air Force memorials, the Service Nurses Memorial, the Rats of Tobruk Memorial, the Boer War, Vietnam War and Korean War memorials, and the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial. The architecture and design of all those memorials remind us of sacrifice. They remind us of sacrifice and the values of our fighting men and women—the values of service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. These are Australian values and our ADF are their custodians. If you go to the ADF website, you will see those values listed out: service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. Australians have fought for these values, Australians have died for these values and our memorials reflect these values.

That is why the ugly defacement and desecration of our war memorials is so disgraceful. It dishonours our war dead, and this, sadly, is a pattern that has emerged over the last six months. We saw, on 11 November last year, the Melbourne war memorial vandalised on Remembrance Day. On 12 January 2024 we saw the Tasmanian war memorial vandalised. On 11 March we saw the Vietnam War Memorial vandalised. In May this year we saw the Hyde Park Anzac Memorial vandalised after protests. Red dye was poured into the Pool of Reflection. On 14 June 2024 the Australian War Memorial was vandalised with pro-Palestinian slogans. Just on the weekend, the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial and the Army Memorial on Anzac Parade were vandalised. This vandalism represents something far deeper and grotesque. This vandalism is an attack on our Australian values, but it's also an attack on our way of life. It's an attack on the thing that binds us together—a shared heritage of service and sacrifice, something that on 25 April, Anzac Day, every year all Australians come together and focus on as a nation.

But, sadly, it goes even deeper than that. On the Vietnam and Korean war memorials were written phrases like this: 'They didn't die so we could fund genocide,' 'Free Gaza,' 'Blood on your hands,' 'Free Palestine,' and, the most disgraceful, 'From the river to the sea'—a deeply anti-Semitic slogan with origins in violent terrorism.

Indeed, 'from the river to the sea' has its origins in the Hamas charter of 2017. Hamas is a terrorist organisation listed by the Australian Commonwealth. It is committed to the destruction of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. It is an organisation driven by extreme religious ideology that celebrates death, violence and hatred. They are people who will not compromise. Just in case people don't believe this, I'll make it very clear; I'm going to read now from the 2017 Hamas charter, their document of general principles and policies. Paragraph 20 says this:

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine …

And here are the words:

… from the river to the sea.

Hamas represents the worst of humanity. We've all heard it said: 'By a fruit its tree shall be known.' On 7 October, we saw the poisonous and evil fruit of Hamas's ideology on full display when they attacked, murdered and raped more than 1,000 innocent Israelis on that terrible day.

And now we have Australians defacing our war memorials with phrases straight out of the Hamas charter. In this country now we are seeing mob rule challenge the rule of law. In this country now, we are seeing mob rule challenge the rule of law. We are seeing the mob tear apart our social cohesion. We are seeing the mob challenge the values that define our nation. And we are seeing the mob trample on our war dead and the values they died for. Everyone here on this side of the House condemns in the strongest possible terms this vile, disgraceful, destructive, divisive and un-Australian behaviour.

We've all been touched in some way or other by 7 October. I think of some Jewish friends in Melbourne who I came to know through this tragedy—a couple who are living in my electorate of Canning, who contacted me soon after 7 October. I'll leave their names off the Hansard in order to protect them, because they feel unsafe. They are Jewish Australians, and the female's mother was killed by Hamas on 7 October. She'd just rung her up to let her know she was pregnant. Her brother was killed protecting his family, and her 10-month-old niece was brutally murdered. I think of her when I read 'from the river to the sea'. As an Australian, how must she feel having suffered so badly at the hands of evil terrorism? It fills me with shame. It fills all of us with shame. That's why we raise this today in the House. I say it again—we condemn this in the strongest possible terms.

This is not an isolated pattern of behaviour. We're seeing electoral offices across the country also targeted. We've seen the Prime Minister's office besieged by protestors chanting the same sorts of things. We've seen the Deputy Prime Ministers, the Attorneys-General, the minister for immigration, the minister for NDIS, the member for Franklin, the member for Wills, the member for Cooper, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Macnamara and the member for Riverina—I could go on. This is a pattern of behaviour which is tearing at the cohesion of this country. We're seeing our universities encamped by protesters who are willing to chant the same slogans that we find in the Hamas charter. We're seeing this at the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, Monash University, the University of Adelaide, the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, Deakin University, Curtin University, RMIT University, La Trobe University, the University of Wollongong and the University of Tasmania. We have a rot at the heart of Australian society right now, and we have young Australians who are chanting terrorist slogans and defacing our war memorials. It's got to stop. It requires political leadership, and that's why we're raising this issue right now. We believe this issue demands political leadership, and we want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies across the states feel that they have our backing to enforce the rule of law, to arrest these people and to prosecute these people, and send a message that modern Australia, with all its diversity, will only cohere if people respect each other, respect the rule of law and uphold the Australian values that I've outlined today.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Barnaby Joyce

I second the motion. Deputy Speaker, when we go to a war memorial, we see names. We see your name; we see Chesters. We see the names Leigh, Buchholz and Pearce. We see the names of people of Czech descent. We see the names of so many people—McCormack. They're just names, but they're so much more. They represent people. They represent people who walked down your street. They represent people who took shade under your tree, who swam in your river and who went to your local primary school. They were people who were loved. They were people who had wives and people who had girlfriends, people who had mates and, later on, people who had husbands.

They were not superhumans. They had all the reasons not to go to war. They had all the reasons to stay at home, where it was safe. But nonetheless they did. They went and they fought, and so many of them gave their lives. That was it. There was nothing more for them. They were dead. Others came back maimed or psychologically disturbed. And then, beyond that, some came back and the marriage was over—no more marriage. Or they came back and they were just forgotten about, to later die and be buried in a pauper's grave, unmarked. Or life had just gone on without them, their careers left behind.

For so many, all that is left is their name on that memorial. That is it. And, for that, in the Australian context they are sacred. They are sacred. For so many of us, it is your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your granduncle, your son, your daughter, your mum or your dad. It's the connection to that. 'That's all I've got. All I've got left is that name.' I had seven granduncles killed—seven. Every one of my grandmother's brothers—dead. They were English; they weren't Australian. The desecration is abominable.

My father wouldn't even let you draw a swastika. You were not allowed to—not on a German plane; nothing—because symbols matter. Symbols matter. What you draw matters. He was a returned serviceman. He was repatriated. He was smashed up. These are the things where we have to make a stand.

On those war memorials are the names of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and gentiles, Christians and people of the Islamic faith. Every name is there. My grandfather fought with innumerable people of the Islamic faith, absolutely, at Gallipoli—surrounded by them.

When we think about this, a person decided to sneak out in the night with a can of spray paint. Do you know why they sneaked out in the middle of the night? Because he or she was scared. That is why they sneaked out. Scared of what—the police? What would the police do? They would arrest you. And then he or she sprayed the anarchy sign, in most instances, on our war memorials for these people. But guess what they went out against? They faced the fire coming the other direction. They had real fear they could die—die at Gallipoli, die on the Western Front, die at Guadalcanal, die in Papua New Guinea, die in Korea, die in Afghanistan, die in Vietnam. They had real fear, and they would have felt that fear; they would not have been immune from it. And their families will mourn their loss forevermore. The only thing left for those families is that piece of brass with their families' names on it. And someone—some piece of filth—has decided that their issue allows them to desecrate it.

Long debate text truncated.

Paul Fletcher

Due to a misunderstanding and no malice, I think, on any part, we moved to a third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 without giving the opposition the opportunity to move amendments in consideration of detail. I therefore seek leave of the House to move that the third reading vote be rescinded so that we can go to the consideration of detail stage.

Tony Burke

Given the circumstances, we want to make sure that we can facilitate that there is a sensible vote. I would ask in granting leave that the member concerned restrict his comments as much as he can so that we can just get to the vote on the amendment, and we'll go through the process from where it would have been.

Milton Dick

For clarity for all members, this is being actioned under standing order 120:

A resolution or other vote of the House may be rescinded during the same session …

Leave granted.

Paul Fletcher

I move:

That the third reading vote on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be rescinded under standing order 120.

Question agreed to.

Luke Howarth

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 25 (line 16), omit the Schedule.

The amendments omit schedule 1 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This schedule would create generous tax breaks for institutional investors who develop build-to-rent housing. We believe the government's handling of the housing crisis has been marked by significant failures, particularly in its approach to build-to-rent in this bill. Since the only housing policies that have delivered support to first home buyers are the housing policies Labor inherited from us, the coalition oppose the schedule with this build-to-rent policy. Labor has prioritised corporate homeownership over individual homeownership.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Petrie be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is the amendment moved by the member for Griffith be agreed to.

Mark Butler

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This is incredibly important legislation. I've said that the House and the Senate have had the opportunity this week to do something meaningful and lasting for the health of young Australians, and I genuinely meant that. Vaping has become a very serious public health scourge in this country. Not only is it a health scourge but it is consistently rated as the number one behavioural issue in schools by school communities and by school leaders.

I want to thank the Senate for the way in which they conducted this debate. I particularly want to thank Senator Lambie, Senator Pocock and Senator Jordon Steele-John for their long, constructive discussions with the government, and with me particularly, about the way in which we can make a serious regulatory scheme work. I also want to thank a long list of outside stakeholders for their support here. This is a package of amendments not just from the Commonwealth but a package agreed between all governments. This has been a regular topic of discussion between state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers now for more than 12 months. We have a vaping enforcement working group that is co-chaired by the head of NSW Health and by Commissioner Outram, head of the Australian Border Force, that brings together not just health authorities but policing authorities. This is genuinely an intergovernmental package of reforms. These reforms are Commonwealth legislation, but they will be enforced by state and territory authorities.

I particularly want to thank officers, particularly the legal counsel of the TGA. I want to thank the tobacco branch in our department. Tony Lawler, the head of the TGA, played a direct role in the construction of these reforms. And there's a long list of groups which have fought for better tobacco control in this country for five decades: the Cancer Council; the AMA; the Australian Council on Smoking & Health; the Public Health Association; and a range of academics—in particular, Emily Banks from the ANU, who has been such a strong public advocate, as well as Becky Freeman and many others as well. I want to thank all of them for their support for this package of reforms.

The amendments to the bill that were passed in the Senate very much keep faith with the original intention of our reform. They ensure legitimate access to therapeutic goods is not unduly obstructed while recreational vaping in general retail settings is abolished in this country. If the House accepts these amendments, that abolition will take place from Monday 1 July.

This product was sold to us as a therapeutic good. It was never presented as a recreational product, particularly not one that would be so cynically and transparently marketed to our children. The tragedy of this subterfuge is that it's working. One in six high school kids is vaping; one in four young adults is vaping. We know that vaping in and of itself is unhealthy. Almost every month we are gathering new evidence about the harms that vaping is causing to young lungs and the harms that particularly nicotine addiction is causing to the mental health of young Australians, to their learning behaviours and to their socialisation. Most insidiously, we know this is a gateway to cigarettes, and that was the intention of big tobacco. I'm very confident that in the coming months and years around the world, just as their attitude to smoking control was eventually unmasked—to their shame—we will learn that this was the strategy all along from big tobacco to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction. We are determined in this government, and I know many members of parliament in this chamber and the other share this determination. We are not going to stand by and let a new generation be recruited to nicotine addiction—not after all of the deaths, dislocation and grief that we have seen for decades and decades because of tobacco.

I strongly commend these amendments to the House. I want to thank everyone who has worked really hard in this building and beyond—in state governments and in the NGO sector in public health groups—for their support of our determination to take this very important public health measure. As I said, parliament doesn't always get an opportunity like this to do something as meaningful and as lasting for the health of the youngest members of our community as we have today. I urge the House to support these amendments.

Zali Steggall

Unfortunately, I must strongly disagree with the minister. These amendments do not, in effect, change the importance and strength of the original bill, which I voted in support of and commended the government for taking such a strong stance on such a scourge that is impacting young people, leading them to be addicted and hooked on nicotine, which leads them to smoking. We know vaping is a strategy of big tobacco. I absolutely welcomed the government's willingness to ban it and to make it incredibly hard to obtain—in particular, for it to be done only through a prescription—to ensure that it was very much limited in how people over 18 could access it. Unfortunately, the Greens, the crossbench and the Senate's amendments have diluted a lot of the effects of the legislation.

My understanding is that we now have a situation where everyone, including people under 18, will be able to have nine items on them per person, and there is no limit per day or on a situation. Essentially, you can still have a situation of a person with a lot of items on them, and there will be no consequence for that, and that can be repeated day after day. In a situation where the minister says we have one in six high school children vaping, what does that mean if they can have nine on their person each day? That is still a system where you are going to see the on-sale of vapes and a black market of vapes. You are allowing too many vapes to be in the hands of children and adults. I would ask the minister: what measures are you going to put in place to reassure parents that they are not still going to see vapes everywhere in the schools? I would ask the Greens party, who have asked for these amendments and pushed for this to happen: how will you assure parents that we're not going see this mass of vapes still for our children, impacting them in their schools?

Now we are in a situation where we're going to see pharmacies essentially take on the role of a tobacconist—those horrendous shops that we've seen pop up all around our communities, as close to schools as they possibly can be, in areas that appeal to children, young people and young adults. We now have a situation where pharmacies are going to be asked to sell behind the counter a product that we know from a health perspective is dangerous—that has a negative impact on people's health. I cannot see how it is a positive development for the government to have caved in to these amendments. I strongly support the bill as it originally stood. I am incredibly disappointed with the crossbench in the Senate and, in particular, the Greens party for having pushed for these amendments rather than supporting a strong ban that genuinely puts the health of children, young people and adults at the heart of the legislation.

I ask the minister, since this is the process for it: what protections and additional measures is the government considering to ensure we don't see that kind of onsale of vapes between children and a black market emerging? What measures will be put in place to ensure, with the sales from behind the counter in pharmacies, that there is the smoking cessation aspect and also the cessation of vaping? What measures will be put in place to ensure people are not addicted to vaping and actually reduce their reliance on vaping?

Sophie Scamps

Firstly, I'd like to thank the government and commend them for the work that they have done to eradicate vaping in the way that they can. There's been so much hard work done behind the scenes from public health agencies and health promotion agencies.

Vaping with single-use vapes was an absolute scourge—it is an absolute scourge, I should say—and one that targeted our children in a way that was extremely cynical, so much so that schools in my electorate have had to install vape detectors in bathrooms because children were leaving classrooms to go and vape. The impact that has had on children's behaviour, their concentration and their ability to learn has been absolutely horrific.

What I would like to say, however, is that I am disappointed at the watering down of what was a really incredible bill. I am disappointed. It is sad because it was, I guess, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really end the scourge of vapes and the targeting of our children with that. My concern is that the ability for vapes to be bought without a prescription by people over the age of 18—and the ability to buy over nine—will mean that people will go from pharmacy to pharmacy to pharmacy. Just as people doctor shopped to get certain prescription medications, they will be shopping around their pharmacists. They'll be able to get a large amount, and they'll be able to onsell those to their friends. Their 18-year-old friends will be able to sell to the children who are already addicted to nicotine.

We know that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to mankind. The large majority of children are already addicted to nicotine. When it becomes expensive, having to buy those vapes, they will simply turn to smoking cigarettes. It is a gateway. It leaves the door open for vaping to continue, and it leaves the door open for that move towards cigarettes. It is a cynical ploy by the big tobacco companies who want to start manufacturing these vapes. It is a cynical ploy to continue to get people hooked on nicotine, which is a gateway to smoking.

Although I really support the measures that the government is trying to implement, I'm very disappointed that it's been watered down in this way, because I think it will only leave the door open to more smoking in our young people.

Monique Ryan

I also rise to express disappointment at the watering down of this incredibly important legislation. Members of the crossbench in this House were very supportive of the government bringing on what was a really courageous innovation. It's really unfortunate that it's been necessary for the government to make these concessions in the Senate.

I'd like to make the point that one of the reasons why that has been necessary is that Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, in the Senate, have consistently expressed real concerns about the fact that Medicare services in this country are not sufficient to provide the support that people who want to give up smoking need. For GPs to be able to provide that sort of service, they need to have time, they need to have the relevant training and they need to be able to give people who want to get off cigarettes the support that they need. It's not a simple process. It's not as simple as just writing a script for vapes. What we know is that people can't access GP services in many parts of this country, and, when they do, many people are forced to deal with an out-of-pocket fee that they simply cannot afford. The need to water down this legislation in the way that we've seen in recent weeks reflects a failure of our Medicare services, which is heartbreaking to see because all of us in this place, I think, agree that smoking is a bad thing and that vapes are a bad thing. Almost all of us—I will come to the Nationals in a moment. So it is incredibly disappointing seen this problem with Medicare and its deficiencies, and, as a result of that, the need to water down this legislation.

I'd also make the point that at the moment we're seeing many Australians resorting to online providers of prescriptions, who are in many cases also going on to provide vapes to people who are looking to smoking cessation. I think this is a failure of our regulatory system which also warrants review by the minister. We're not providing best-practice care when people can go online and get a prescription for vapes which is, essentially, sent out by the script provider. That is not a situation where people are receiving best-practice care for smoking cessation.

Finally, I would like to address some concerns that many Australians have about the fact that one of the major political parties in this country continues to receive significant donations from the tobacco lobby—which is the same as the vaping lobby. I would call out the Nationals political party, which is a very bad tail, essentially, wagging the Liberal Party dog in its decision to oppose this legislation, and which has forced the government to deal with the crossbench in the Senate as it has. It's an absolute disgrace when a major political party in this country continues to receive donations from the tobacco and vaping lobby. I think that Australians should continue to consider that and that they should always take it into account every time they think about the National Party and whether or not it's reflecting the best interests of them and of their children.

I'm sorry that I can't support these amendments in this House. I'd love to; I'm very happy to see the vaping legislation go forward, but it's very disappointing that it has had to be watered down in the way that it has.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew Gee

Last night I was outlining the reasons why I'm opposing this bill and this ban. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the words of Bonnie Skinner, who is the chief executive officer of Sheep Producers Australia. She said in her submission to the inquiry looking at this bill:

Government has a responsibility to ensure that no Australian is worse off or left behind. However, should this bill be passed, that is what will occur for thousands of Australians.

Consultation on policy implementation has been done in a rushed and unprofessional manner that has left many producers feeling removed from a process that will impact their families, businesses and communities.

Xavier Martin from New South Wales Farmers has also made some very telling statements, just as Ms Skinner has. Mr Martin says:

… now they are switching off markets for farmers, and food for hungry people.

He asks:

What's next and can we continue to feed and clothe the nation if the decision-making keeps deteriorating?

I'll return to the words of Charlie Thomas from the National Farmers Federation in the NFF's submission to the inquiry. I think Mr Thomas makes some further, very valid and salient points. He says:

The Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea Bill will end a lot of things.

It will end Australia's uplift of animal welfare standards in the Middle East.

It'll end the livelihoods of farmers, shearers, truckies, agents and stock handlers in WA.

It'll end the strong trade and interpersonal ties Australia has developed in the Middle East as a trusted food security partner.

In summary, it'll end the tremendous amount of good this industry creates, both here and abroad.

Again, this is very telling evidence from one of our key agricultural organisations in this country.

But it's not just the big organisations in the agricultural sector which are opposed to this bill. I'll leave the last word to one of our own highly respected local farmers from the Calare electorate, from near Carcoar, George King. He said that live export is not just about the ships and the animals; it is about improving human welfare through affordable and accessible food. It's about education, sharing knowledge and building relationships that subsequently have a positive impacts on animal welfare. Australia has an obligation, as a good global citizen, to export food and best practices to our neighbours. Again, salient points from one of the local farming leaders.

I'll conclude with a couple of remarks about upcoming events. Many in this House will recall the highly successful—and, I would say, evocative—move by the member for Kennedy to get me to dress up as a pig to draw attention to the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 and to stop supermarkets' snouts in the trough. That was a bill put forward by the Independents. The major parties refused to support our bill when it was put into parliament. When the pigs and the member for Kennedy came to Orange, that earned the ire of the National Party. The member for Kennedy quite rightly put the senator who was interrupting our press conference back in his place.

This leads me to my next point—and this is breaking news: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be in parliament next week on Monday and Tuesday, seeking meaningful consultation. Over 61,000 people have signed the Keep the Sheep petition. I'm also reliably informed by the Keep the Sheep delegation that they actually have a mascot. The mascot is called Murray the Sheep. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but they've told me that, to Murray's many and growing circle of friends, it's pronounced 'Maaa-ree'. So Murray the Sheep could be making an appearance with the delegation—and here's where it gets interesting. I ask: what happens if Murray the Sheep bumps into Murray the agriculture minister? That could be very interesting. Members of the press gallery might want to keep an eye out for that one. Pencil that into your diaries: the Keep the Sheep delegation will be coming here on Monday and Tuesday next week. Murray the sheep could well be joining them, and it could be a very interesting couple of days. So I urge all members of this place to consult with the Keep The Sheep delegation; they want meaningful consultation. That will be very interesting to see.

The agriculture sector does an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting for our economy and also for our national prosperity. The ag sector and farmers around Australia oppose this ban and they oppose this bill, and that's why I'm opposing it too. I urge all members of this House to oppose it as well.

Mike Freelander

I thank the member for Calare. Our Murray the minister is grey, rather than Murray the sheep, which I think is white, so we'll be able to tell the difference, thank you very much. We have a 'Murray Grey', you see!

Yes. Very good. I know that. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the member for Hunter.

Long debate text truncated.