Motions

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:11): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes that:

(i) the 29^th of November is International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, as declared by the United Nations General Assembly in 1977;

(ii) the current conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to be unresolved, resulting in the loss of innocent lives; and

(iii) many South Australians are concerned by the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in the region.

(b) recognises that:

(i) Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations adopts the principle of equal rights and self-determination;

(ii) the ongoing occupation of Palestine is a significant barrier to finding a lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict; and

(iii) international humanitarian law must be observed by all state and non-state actors in times of both conflict and peace.

(c) acknowledges that:

(i) pro-Palestinian advocacy is based on humanitarian norms and not anti-Semitism; and

(ii) Islamophobia, anti-Palestinianism and anti-Semitism has no place in Australia.

(d) reaffirms its:

(i) support for the rights of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people to live in equality and peace within internationally recognised borders.

(e) calls on the federal government to:

(i) actively promote measures to end the conflict between Israel and Palestine on the basis of relevant UN resolutions and international law; and

(ii) continue working with humanitarian organisations to provide humanitarian assistance and support for civilians affected by the conflict.

It is with no great joy that I move this motion today, because it reflects the failure of world governments, and particularly Western nations, to resolve a conflict that started over 75 years ago. This conflict did not start on 7 October this year. To say so is both historically incorrect and offensive to those who have lost their lives and to those who mourn and grieve for both family and friends, in particular those children who will never experience the opportunity to go to school, to play sport, to play music, to enter into relationships or to have children of their own—all those things that are an expression of our humanity.

Most of the lives lost have been those of innocent civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian. Over those 75 years, many people have lost their lives. It is a senseless conflict, and we have to stop pretending that, if we turn a blind eye or stay silent, the plight of the Palestinian people in this conflict will be resolved. When we stay silent, evil prevails.

Evil prevailed on 7 October, which resulted in the senseless death of 1,200 Israelis and another 240 abducted. The grief and anger of the Israeli people is understandable, and quite rightly those acts have been condemned. Since 7 October, 14,532 Palestinians, including 6,000 children, have died as a result of Israel's response to the horrific acts of 7 October. The indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, and particularly children, has caused enormous grief and pain in Palestine. It can quite rightly be called an evil act worthy of condemnation.

In my faith, we are all born equal and in the image of God. No child is less equal and no child's death should be referred to as collateral damage. There is no justification for killing innocent children, and to refer to them as collateral damage is an affront to our humanity. My faith teaches me about the power of love and peace, and the right of all of us to live in dignity and be treated with dignity. That includes the Palestinian people.

It is no accident that the General Assembly of the United Nations decided at their 91^st plenary meeting, held on 2 December 1977, to commence an annual observance day on 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This decision was based on a recommendation of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. That is what this motion seeks to do, namely, acknowledge the right of Palestinian people to self-determination, to live in peace, to prosper, and to live freely in a place called Palestine, as determined by international law and with internationally recognised boundaries.

This motion will not change the course of events in either Canberra or the Middle East. What this motion does do, hopefully, is send a message to the Palestinian community, of all faiths, Muslim and Arab people of all faiths in our community, that the grief and pain felt by them at the current conflict in Palestine is acknowledged by this parliament and every life lost deserves equal consideration and respect by all of us.

By acknowledging their grief and pain, we make a positive contribution to the process of healing. The process of healing will only truly progress when political leaders acknowledge the grief and pain of both communities and not preference one over the other. Our political leaders should not act as cheerleaders for one side or the other in this conflict but use language which respects both.

What is said is important, but what is not said is more important. Had the political commentary to date been reasonably balanced and respectful to all communities involved in the current conflict, there would be no need for this motion. The broader Palestinian communities have felt isolated and silenced by the lack of words which recognise their plight and their experience.

Article 1 of the Charter of United Nations adopts the principle of equal rights and self-determination. When we talk about international law and when we talk about rules-based behaviour, clearly we have to apply that to all nations and not selectively with some nations and not others.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge the steps made by the Albanese federal government and Minister Penny Wong, who actually acknowledged that international humanitarian law applies to this conflict. While I personally think the response by the federal government could have been more precise and clearer, I do not criticise them because, of all the political voices on this matter, theirs have been the most moderate and considered. Some of the political rhetoric has been hypocritical and harmful, as they call for social cohesion and use inflammatory language which creates division.

It is also important to note that earlier this year this chamber endorsed the principles 1 to 8 stated in the Sydney statement on anti-Palestinianism. Those principles make very clear the rights of Palestinian people and the rights of the Palestine nation under international law. There is nothing really controversial about this because what it says is that this is the international law, and this is what we should be upholding as a world community—and Australia is part of that community—and that these are the principles that we should be upholding, including the rights of Palestinian people to actually protest peacefully around the world in support of their plight and their right to statehood.

Sadly, we are in a position where often just criticising the Israeli government makes you antisemitic. I reject that position. It is important that we acknowledge that supporting the rights of Palestinian people to statehood does not diminish the right of Jewish people to their own state of Israel.

On 15 May each year, the Palestinian people around the world commemorate Nakba, the day that 80 per cent of Palestinians leaving the land occupied by Israel were forced from their homes and country and made refugees. The remaining 20 per cent became internally displaced people. The partitioning of Palestine without the consent of the Palestinian people was a disastrous decision by the United Nations to appease the Zionist movement and cleanse the conscience of Europe for their failure to stop the barbarism and extreme political right against the Jewish people across the continent. The Palestinian people paid and continue to pay a heavy price for the sins of Western nations to address one injustice by only creating another.

Palestinian people continue to be victims of 19^th century and 20^th century colonialism. From 1947 to 1949, over 530 Palestinian towns and villages were completely destroyed by Zionist militia, with many of the depopulated towns taken over by Jewish settlers and renamed. Around 15,000 Palestinian people were killed during these forced takeovers of Palestinian land and almost 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes in Galilee. Those who attempted to return were shot and killed.

Sadly, successive Israeli governments have introduced laws and enacted policies that have made the Palestinian people second-class citizens in their own country. The discrimination, hardship and indignities experienced by Palestinian people would not be tolerated in any First World nation in Western Europe, yet we continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of Palestinian people.

Many Palestinian people live scattered across the world, hoping that one day they will be able to return home, a right which all Australians expect and experience but one which is denied the Palestinian people. Today, six million Palestinian refugees reside outside historical Palestine and continue to be denied their right to return to their homeland, while the 3.5 million Palestinians who live on the West Bank are denied the right to vote for a government that continues to control every aspect of their lives.

Some 2.2 million Palestinians live in appalling conditions caused by the ongoing seizure of their lands by Israeli forces, while the 1.9 million Palestinians who continue to live within historic Palestine do not have the right to vote but are subject to different laws, which diminish their inherent humanity and dignity.

While many European powers have accepted the process of decolonisation across the world, Israel continues to be permitted to occupy the land and lives of the Palestinian people. It is right that we remember the Holocaust and other atrocities and acts of genocide committed during the 20^th and 21^st centuries, but in doing so we should not be allowed to justify aggression and violence against the Palestinian people, nor should we allow ourselves to be distracted from what is happening in Palestine today and be blind to the hardship and oppression experienced by Palestinian people.

As the foreign minister has quite rightly said, this conflict will not be resolved unless we work towards a plan to recognise the plight of Palestinians to achieve statehood with internationally recognised boundaries. The internationally recognised borders to this day—and by that I mean recognised by international law—are the 1967 boundaries, yet those boundaries continue to be breached by the state of Israel.

We also need to acknowledge that there is a power imbalance between the Palestinian people and the state of Israel. It is important to note that we as an Australian nation—and that is why this motion calls on the Australian government—acknowledge the right of Palestinian people to self-determination as provided by international law, acknowledge the Palestinians' right to statehood and also actively promote measures to end the conflict between Israel and Palestine on just grounds and on the basis of international negotiations. It is time for Palestine to be free and for the Palestinian people and Israeli people to live in peace. For this to happen, we need to not only stand by Israel but stand by the people of Palestine.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): I appreciate that this is a passionate issue, but I will remind the gallery to please be quiet during the debate.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:22): I rise to speak on this issue at short notice. The opposition will offer some amendments to endeavour to keep those parts of the member for Light's motion which I think many in the community, as do we, would passionately support. We are desperately in favour of peace. We are desperately saddened and troubled by the loss of an individual, especially a child, especially anybody who is described in any way as innocent, as are so many people in Palestine and as are so many people in Israel who have lost their lives. The trauma their families suffer is unbearable to think about for anyone.

We offer amendments because, while I believe the spirit of the member for Light's motion may be intended to capture and be a voice for those people in our South Australian community who feel that they have not heard their voices honoured over the very difficult seven weeks in the public discourse on this difficult issue, nevertheless, were this parliament to stand by a form of words as expressed in a motion, the Liberal Party believes that we should be consistent with the views and the considered motions that we have put in the past, and indeed with Australia's foreign policy, for which this house is not responsible but obviously the commonwealth government is.

I will detail the description of the amendments briefly for the benefit of the house. I believe that copies are being circulated for members' consideration. It would have been my intention to circulate these earlier, but it was only brought to my attention and the opposition's attention in the last half an hour that this motion would be completed this afternoon.

We had no notice of the motion's coming prior to the phone call that I got from the member for Light yesterday advising that, after question time today, he would seek to suspend standing orders in order to debate this motion. I sought information from the Government Whip as to whether the government would be seeking to complete the motion today and would we have to, as such, convene a joint party meeting to consider the amendments. The Government Whip advised yes, that it would be completed.

The leader of the house and I had a conversation this morning during which I suggested I might have amendments were there to be a requirement for it today. Several hours later, the leader of the house told me that the government had determined that they would be happy to adjourn debate after the member for Light's contribution, thus enabling the Liberal Party to take a bit longer to consider the potential amendments, to consult more broadly on those potential amendments and, indeed, for us to circulate such amendments to members of the government for their consideration and for this to be dealt with in a considered manner, hopefully a bipartisan manner.

The leader of the house apologised to me half an hour ago and suggested he was happy for me to record for the record the exchange. It is in that context that I do not complain about the rules of debate lightly and I certainly do not wish to interrupt the merits of the discussion, only to explain why the opposition proposes to have only one speaker on this motion and only to explain why I propose to go mostly through the technical detail of the amendments rather than a more deeply considered reflection on the broader issues. It is through having had only five minutes to print out the draft amendments and then 20 minutes to think about what I might say that I therefore offer this contribution.

Firstly, one of the concerns with the way the language is currently structured is the description of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is our view that it is a conflict between Israel and Hamas. I said in the motion on Israel and after the 7 October massacre that I did not believe that Hamas necessarily spoke for all the Palestinian people, and condemnation of the attacks should not reflect more broadly on the Palestinian people than on Hamas. The situation in Gaza is a tragedy for the Palestinian people and Palestinian families, many of whom seek nothing more than peace.

The motion, therefore, amends 'Palestine' to 'Hamas' in the description of the conflict. In the description in (a)(ii) of the resulting loss of innocent lives, it also suggests that it is important to note that at this time the continuing plight of Israeli hostages who remain in captivity should be added to the motion. I think that it is nothing more than a matter of record that the reason, the trigger, that has meant that this motion exists—why there is deep unhappiness, unsettlement and trauma in our community, let alone the global community—is that it has been triggered in the immediate sense by the attacks of Hamas on 7 October, the taking of hostages and the fact that the vast majority of the hostages remain, presumably, in tunnels in Gaza, and I think it would be inappropriate for this motion to pass without noting that continues to be the issue.

The motion at (b)(ii) describes significant barriers to lasting peace. The amendment describes an additional alternative barrier to lasting peace, which is that the ongoing aim of Hamas is to, and I quote, 'obliterate' Israel, as expressed in its charter and demonstrated by its massacres in southern Israel on 7 October.

The amendment to paragraph (c) of the motion is where the member for Light has described that 'pro-Palestinian advocacy is based on humanitarian norms and not anti-Semitism'. Indeed, the member for Light, I am certain in his heart, has no level of offence ever meant against anyone of any faith or race background. I think there are examples where people have been described as antisemitic for calling out the government of Israel on occasion.

I agree that criticism of the government of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism, except in circumstances where one is criticising the government of Israel only for behaviour by that government and not by any other government doing similar activities in any other case; it is just that the government of Israel is the government of the only Jewish country in the world. Therefore I am suggesting an amendment to paragraph (c)(i) to confirm our belief that pro-Palestinian advocacy is based on humanitarian norms, but adding new words identifying:

…but when such advocacy also denies the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and calls for the elimination of Israel, it constitutes antisemitism;

At this point, for the benefit of the Clerks, I note that in the motion circulated by the whip 'antisemitism' did not appear with a hyphen. In the Notice Paper, it appears with a hyphen. There is a difference, sir. Antisemitism is a word. It is not the opposition to semitism. Antisemitism is in itself an approach best exemplified by Hitler, but antisemitism is the word and there should be no hyphen. It is not clear to me that that was a drafting intent. I think that might have been an error in the house, and I trust that the amendment makes clear that there should be no hyphen.

Importantly, paragraph (c)(ii) is a very important part of the member for Light's motion confirming that Islamophobia, anti-Palestinianism and antisemitism have no place in Australia, and I could not agree more. In relation to paragraph (d), it is just minor amendments. We are suggesting that it changes the words to:

(d) reaffirms its:

(i) support for the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in equality and peace in their own respective states with internationally recognised borders.

I think that is a statement of Australian government policy, of the policy of the two major parties. I do not think that the member for Light would have trouble with that change. We would recommend a change to paragraph (e)(i) to more simply present as:

(e) calls on the federal government to:

(i) actively promote measures to support a lasting peace for the benefit of Israeli and Palestinian people;

On a motion such as this, we endeavour as leaders within our parties to capture a bipartisan spirit so that when we speak we can try to find a way of expressing the views of the South Australian people.

The member for Light, as I take it from his speech, suggests that the motion passed recently did not necessarily feel the support by everyone in the South Australian community. I am sorry if that is the case. I certainly believe that we want to express grief for any loss and express our unified desire for a just outcome and a lasting and sustainable outcome.

Certainly there is dispute over a range of matters in this area that are very difficult to resolve, but it is very difficult for us to allow the motion to pass without amendment given the difficulty in what would Israel's response to 7 October be without seeking to dismantle Hamas.

We can express support for that desire while at the same time bemoaning and expressing our sadness for the trauma and tragedy of every child loss, of every innocent loss, of every Palestinian loss, but we must, I think, in context do it in the recognition that this motion responds to 7 October, and the Israeli losses must be present in the motion for it to have our support.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:33): First and foremost, I owe the opposition an apology, and I am prepared to say that, and also especially to the Co-Convenor of the Friends of Palestine. I do note that no member was able to support the suspension, but that is a matter that they are entitled to do. However, I did give my consent to an adjournment.

Just to explain to the house what would normally happen on a day like today, for an ordinary day a motion that you wanted to be debated you would seek a suspension of standing orders. The lead drafter or the lead speaker would make his or her contribution to the house and we would adjourn, but today, of course, is a significant day: it is the International Day of Palestine and it is recognised by the United Nations, and it was recognised so in 1977, hence the government now wishes to proceed with the motion and pass it. We have shown solidarity with Israel over the attacks by Hamas in October. We are now showing solidarity with the people of Palestine.

I have had a look at many of the amendments the deputy leader has proposed. Some have merit; there are some that the government cannot agree to. The official language of the Australian government is now that the ongoing occupation of Palestine is an inhibitor to a two-state solution, and we will of course, while we are in government, always support the nation's foreign policy.

However, what I think we can do is potentially adjourn the motion so we can have a discussion with the opposition to work out what is an acceptable amendment that we can agree on. The government would obviously like to have a bipartisan uniform approach to this because the Palestinian people deserve that. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.