Motions

Palestine

Debate resumed.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:26): I rise to speak on the now amended motion of the member for Light, and I indicate that, as he has been newly elected as the co-convener with me of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, I publicly acknowledge that and congratulate him on that appointment. I thank him for stepping forward to deal with what is a continued difficulty, at the very least, which is the kindest way I can describe it, in respect of the plight of Palestinians, which, as outlined by other speakers, has occurred over a number of decades.

In speaking to this amended motion, whilst I think it has increased its acceptability for a public debate in respect of how we might contribute as South Australians to this circumstance, it is an improvement, but in my view it still falls short, and it falls short for a number of reasons. Can I firstly say why it does not fall short. Some will say it is an unacceptable situation where our parliament, as South Australians, should be spending its time in dealing with something that is within the purview and ultimate determinant of the commonwealth government and/or commonwealth government and therefore it should not be a subject of discussion in this parliament. I do not agree with that approach.

Whilst the ultimate jurisdiction as to contribution is one for the commonwealth parliament, as it is described (I have heard it called the federal government and parliament), it is not a matter that we should shy from in the sense of our discussion about a contribution on a debate. We have done it before in this chamber. We have looked at international issues of concern. We have dealt with contributions in respect of federal law where there is urging, from time to time, for a certain position to be taken. So I do not argue that. I see that as narrow and legalistic, and I do not think that it helps to achieve the aim.

I am concerned for the people of Palestine and the circumstances in which many of them now live, within a walled city, and that is a matter that needs to be recognised and understood. I have maintained, and perhaps it is because of one's age, which is ever-advancing, that we are around for a long time. We have seen this before. We have seen circumstances in which we have taken up a contribution to policy debate. I was not old enough to understand or appreciate the significance of the establishment of Israel post-World War II and the circumstances surrounding it. However, we have read a lot about it and we have, as other speakers have said, understood that there has been a level of persecution and a level of concern that have continued, particularly arising out of the circumstances of the Jewish people under German occupation in Poland, Germany and other areas that we need to appreciate in the circumstance of it.

I was old enough in the 1960s to see on my family's newly acquired television set in black and white, just before man walked on the moon, the repeated plight in respect of Northern Ireland and the IRA. The PLO was also a dominant political feature in respect of this issue in the 1960s, which I am old enough to remember. In the 1960s, persons older than me went off to war to save the protection of the South Vietnamese. In the 1970s, we quickly learned about the Turkish occupation in Cyprus. I remember attending many meetings and occasions in relation to supporting the abolition of apartheid in South Africa and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which was high on the agenda for law students of that era.

In the 1980s, we worked on freeing the people of East Germany in the building of the Berlin Wall and, in particular, the bringing down of the wall. We worked on the establishment of democratic government in Mongolia and the development of its constitution. In the 1990s, we went on to deal with the plight, more locally, of the Timorese people in Indonesia. There have been others since. Throughout all of this, the issue in respect of the Palestinians in the Middle East has not resolved. It is a matter that we have to continue to be apprised of, to deal with and to advocate, and we have to listen carefully to how it might best be remedied.

Through successive governments of different political persuasions, Australia's position has been to have a two-state solution. I have to say it has been a moving feast in recent decades as to how that is to be applied and how it should be advanced; nevertheless, that has been and remains our country's position. I think if we are to move away from that by means of this type of motion to try to effectively bring about an advance of that process, then we need to do it in a managed manner. This is not the way to do it.

I have advised the member for Light how disappointed I am that we have advanced in that manner. I have pointed out to him that his own federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, has taken a view that his preferred position (I do not know whether it will change at the Labor conference at the end of next year) is that Labor should adhere to the existing position and withhold diplomatic recognition until the two-state solution is actually reached, not the reverse.

Similarly, Mr Kim Beazley, a former Labor leader, has taken a different view. He says that it is important, for the Palestinians themselves and for those of us who understand the significance of their plight, that they deal with the hard questions in the arena with them and deal with the status of East Jerusalem. By no means is it an easy issue. To simply amend this motion to make a provision calling upon the commonwealth government essentially to recognise the state of Palestine and announce conditions and time lines is not the way to go. In fact, we should be looking at how we advance and ensure the management of this in a structured way that is not just going to cause further discourse.

I think it is reasonable, and I think that all political parties need to address these issues. I commend the Australian Labor Party convention organisers for at least starting the dialogue in relation to that, but I make the point that we are far way from it. I think that we would fracture the advances that have been made in respect of the two-state solution, and I think that it would, unfortunately, spiral down into further discourse about what have been continued attempts in the communities in South Australia to advance the cause of the people of Palestine.

I particularly want to thank those from AFOPA and those who have provided material and briefings to the parliament. In relation to the new Center for Islam, I am not particularly happy with the word 'center' being spelled in the American way, but I am ever hopeful that they might actually amend that. The Minister for Education agrees with me, too. We do need to do that. It is with a heavy heart that we are not advancing something that is not going to be productive here, but at least let us have a discussion about it and, hopefully, this morning it can be addressed.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:35): I rise to speak on this amended motion on an issue that I have been deeply passionate about for a very long time. I am very proud to commend it to the house, and I thank the member for Light for bringing it here. It is absolutely right that in this place we recognise the state of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people. Australia and all of us in this house as leaders in our communities have a moral obligation to recognise Palestine, as do many other people and nations across the globe.

Australia took part in partitioning Palestine in 1947 through the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. In doing so and from that point, we have recognised Israel but we have not recognised Palestine. Recognition is such an important way of backing our words and our policies with action. It is a crucial way for us to show our compassion and our understanding through real action. In so many settings, including here in our own nation, we have to contemplate recognition in different ways. We do so because in recognising people it helps to give those people often much-needed identity, validity, acknowledgement and acceptance.

Many parties and many past governments and leaders here to some degree have supported the two-state solution but have not acted to recognise this second state, Palestine. Of course, a two-state solution, and indeed any solution to end tragic and enduring conflict, must include Palestine. Living here in South Australia we enjoy secure borders and certainty. It is certainty which allows families to plan for their future and for children and communities as a whole to thrive. It is right that in this place we draw attention to the plight of the Palestinian people who do not have these same freedoms and cannot build their lives and cannot adequately secure the wellbeing of their children and look to the future.

As said by the member for Light, recognition of Palestine is consistent with international law and previous UN Security Council resolutions. Our international community has called on the Israeli government to withdraw from territories it occupied in 1967, to stop building settlements and to stop moving its population to a land it is currently negotiating about in terms of a future Palestinian state. These acts are not in good faith and are not helping to bring about a fair and sustainable solution. Again, as did the member for Light, I must iterate that they are government decisions and not decisions of the Israeli people. In saying that, I point out that recognising Palestine is anti-occupation but it is absolutely not anti-Israel.

Those working for peace in the region rightly seek to create spaces for both Israel and Palestine to exist and to provide safe spaces for their citizens and their communities to thrive. Land must be returned to the Palestinian people so that they have the freedom to build their own nation, to be safe, to thrive and to see their children grow well. As the member for Light said, it is nonsensical to promote a two-state solution without two states. Recognition is pro-peace and establishes and brings to life the will of our international community, including Australians.

One hundred and thirty-eight countries recognise the state of Palestine, including the parliaments of the UK and France. The Vatican and Sweden have now established full diplomatic ties with Palestine. The latest Roy Morgan survey shows that 73 per cent of Australians and 74.3 per cent of South Australians support recognition. South Australians and our international community are in favour of recognition and of a two-state solution. It is right that we support the Palestinian people who are living in difficult and unjust conditions, uncertain of their future. To do so, to show this support, will reflect our nation's and our state's compassion, our sense of justice and our deep commitment to ensuring that all people are treated well, treated fairly and recognised. I commend this motion to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:39): I rise to speak briefly on this motion as the member for Stuart and to point out that this issue is a conscience vote for the Liberal opposition, and that is for good reason. This is an extremely polarising issue, but that is no reason not to deal with it. We deal with easy issues and we deal with difficult issues all the time.

It is an extremely important and sensitive international issue. I would suggest that there is not one among us, or at least very few among us, who has enough information to make a sensible decision on this. We all know what we hear in the media. The deputy leader recounted a whole range of issues that she has learned through her own study. I remember very well seeing men walk on the moon on our tiny black and white TV also. To be quite blunt, I do not think that any of us has enough information to deal with this issue.

We have established parliamentary select committees for far less important issues that were brought to this house in the private member's motion stage. We have had a parliamentary select committee into grain freight. We have had parliamentary select committees on a wide range of things. I am not saying that any of those committees are unimportant, but this issue is way more important than many of the issues for which we have had select committees established in this house. I do not accept that we have enough information to make a decision. That is why we, as a Liberal team, have made this a conscience vote.

I understand that the government has taken a caucus decision to vote as a block on this issue. I also understand that that decision was taken by the Labor Party after significantly changing the initial motion. I listened very carefully to the member for Light. I do not doubt his genuine intention in bringing this forward. It will be interesting to see if every member of the Labor government turns up to vote in support of the position that has been taken apparently by the Labor Party. To be quite blunt, I think this is being dealt with in a fairly messy fashion. I think there may well be a bit of mischief in this, not by the member for Light or any of the members who have spoken here today either—but mischief in this.

I do not feel that it is appropriate for us to deal with this, not because we cannot take a position but because I suspect that most of us do not have nearly enough information to make a genuinely informed decision on this issue, which has perplexed the international community for decades.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:42): I have no comments to make on the merits or otherwise of this motion, other than to reject any assertion from the member for Stuart that there is any mischief at play in bringing this motion to the house. The member for Light can speak for himself, but I speak for the rest of the people who sit on this side of the house. There are nothing but good intentions from those on this side of the house in bringing this motion to the parliament, whatever your view on this conflict. I want my rejection of any mischief on behalf of the Labor Party on this motion on the record.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:43): I will not prolong the debate. I thank all the speakers for their contributions. Contrary to what has been said, I think this issue is well understood and I also understand and respect that people have different views on this matter and that some people will just have to agree to disagree. That is fine. But I disagree with the suggestion that this motion is somehow inappropriate for this place. I think it is an appropriate place, as members opposite have said. We have discussed a whole range of international and federal issues in this place. What this motion seeks to do is to put on record support for the recognition of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian state. In my view, I think it makes a small contribution—I accept that—to the peace process.

I read recently a very good article by a journalist from The Guardian, but I do not remember his name. He said that the worst thing, the most damaging thing for this dispute is to enable the stalemate to continue. It just breeds more resentment right across the Middle East and leads to more violence. We should not lay blame on one side or the other; we need to actually move forward in a practical sense. The way to move forward is by making sure that both parties have an equal seat at the table. By recognising the state of Palestine, we do that.

Motion carried.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!