PALESTINIAN STATE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.M. Kanck:

That this council—

1. Recognises the event known to the Palestinian people as Al-Nakba—the Catastrophe;

2. Affirms the special connection of Australia to the land of Palestine and the Palestinians;

3. Regrets the failure of both sides, over the last 60 years, to reach an agreement which guarantees justice and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians; and

4. Calls for the rapid establishment of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders in accordance with UN Resolution 242.

(Continued from 7 May 2008. Page 2769.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:44): I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. The question of Palestinian claims to sovereignty is a complex one. There are many arguments and debates about what has happened in the past and what ought to happen in the future. What I do not consider particularly helpful is one-sided partisan support for one side or the other, and I believe this motion errs in that direction. The wording of the motion reads, 'recognises the event known to the Palestinian people as Al-Nakba—the catastrophe'. This event is known to most of us as the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. In my view, this motion essentially therefore condemns the creation of Israel, which is not a position that I support.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The Hon. Ms Kanck interjects that she made sure that it does not say that, but wording is very important. If we were to look at the British troops going into Northern Ireland in 1969, you could call that an invasion, or an occupation, or you could call it troops being sent in to restore public order. How you choose to describe that action would give away a lot as to how you viewed the rightness or otherwise of that happening. When you refer to the creation of Israel as 'Al-Nakba—the Catastrophe' and all that that suggests to Palestinians, I think that is taking a clear position.

I think the better approach is that taken by the federal parliament, which recently passed a motion congratulating the state of Israel on reaching 60 years of statehood. The motion also acknowledged and honoured the important role Australia played in the establishment of Israel. It is important to maintain a balanced position on this issue, one that recognises the creation of Israel and its right to continue to exist in peace. I do not consider that this motion reflects that need for a balanced position and I oppose it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:46): This is a very sensitive and complicated issue and I think it is very hard for us, as Aussies, to understand what happens in the Middle East, when we live in such a vast continent and in such relative peace. The second and third paragraphs of this motion state:

2. affirms the special connection of Australia to the land of Palestine and the Palestinians;

3. regrets the failure of both sides, over the last 60 years, to reach an agreement which guarantees justice and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

That is something that we would agree with. As I mentioned in a contribution on a previous motion, I went to Israel last year. I think that two of the aspects of our water trade mission, which did not actually have anything to do with water, affirmed those two aspects of this motion in quite a profound way. One of them was that we happened to attend the 90^th anniversary of the ANZAC battle at Beersheba, which is where the battle of the Light Horse Brigade took place. As I said, it was quite profound and very moving, when you consider that all those years ago our Aussie battlers were on the other side of the world. We may complain about a 20 or 30-hour plane trip, but lord knows how many months it took for our troops to go over there.

It was outlined to us in great detail about the amazing feat that they undertook, in that the horses and the men, I think, waited in the desert and went without food and water for three days. I think part of the reason that they were successful is that they changed the military rules, in that rather than charging and then getting off their horses to fight, they rode over the trenches. A number of those horses were gutted in quite a violent way, but they continued to press on to capture the wells—obviously water is incredibly important in that part of the world—and change the direction of World War I in that region. That was a very important military victory for the allies in World War I.

Another part of our program was a meeting with Shimon Peres. I cannot quite remember what the question was that I asked Mr Peres, but being a politician of many years' experience he did not answer it. However, he did say, 'Well, of course, Australia is a country with not a lot of history and a great deal of land, and Israel is a country with a lot of history and not a lot of land.' Everybody said, 'Wow, that's so profound', and completely forgot that he had not answered the question. But he was quite correct.

When we were over there we had a bodyguard with a gun stationed at the front of the bus, and he was with us for the entire trip. Thankfully, I do not think we were under any threat whatsoever, but it is a bit strange to hear the distant gunfire that occurred in southern Israel when we visited the Ashkelon desalination plant—it was quite disturbing.

I also remember (I think it was last year) when there were a bunch of ministers of different denominations, who were largely based in New South Wales, who went over to Israel and were highly critical of some of the things that Israel was undertaking. I thought to myself: I do not think there is any place in this country where you could understand what it is like to live under those conditions, where your near neighbours would, quite frankly, like to blast you off the face of the planet.

I agree with the third paragraph, in that both sides have issues. They are very different cultures and I do not know how you resolve those issues. I think, as Australians, it is probably not our place to be giving advice to other countries. We certainly have our own problems to solve. As a place that offers a safe place for refugees, I think that is very appropriate.

Shimon Peres has started what I think is a very worthwhile program, which is to be commended in speaking to this motion. He has been the instigator of the Peres Centre for Peace, which is described as an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation which he founded in 1996—he is a Nobel laureate and former prime minister of Israel—with the aim of furthering his vision in which the people of the Middle East region work together to build peace through socioeconomic operation and development and people-to-people interaction, which I think is largely the words which he used when we met with him, that he, in fact, tries to get the young Palestinian and Israeli people together so that they can try to understand each other's cultures. I think that is probably one of the more effective ways of initiating long-term peace, so that people do not have those sorts of divisions where they do not understand and therefore they hate.

Overall, I do not support this motion. I think it is quite simplistic. I agree with the previous speaker in that I think it does put the case of one side over another and, therefore, I encourage other members not to support this motion.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (17:52): I had not intended to speak but I would like to very briefly, on this occasion, register my reasons for not agreeing to the passage of this resolution.

I agree with previous speakers that the expressions in the first and fourth paragraphs of the resolution appear to indicate support for the Palestinian cause in this long-standing dispute. I do not believe that it is appropriate for a state parliament in Australia to pass international resolutions of this kind, especially given the extensive history in relation to the Israel-Palestinian issue and also the high-level negotiations which are presently (one would hope) proceeding in relation to the resolution of the issue. First, I do not agree that it is appropriate for us to be seeking to project ourselves onto the international stage in this manner and, secondly, even if it was appropriate for us to be doing so, I do not believe that the expressions used in this resolution are sufficiently neutral to warrant support from us.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:54): I rise to very briefly indicate Family First's position on this motion. It is probably not surprising to note that Family First opposes this motion for a number of reasons which I think have been well canvassed by a number of speakers already. I will very briefly highlight two reasons why we oppose the amendment. The first is that I do not believe it is appropriate for this parliament to be debating matters of international significance. We are a state parliament and our jurisdiction, I believe, unless under the most extreme circumstances, should be limited to discussions of things that affect the hard-working taxpayers who pay our salaries. Our conversations and our debates should be limited to servicing the needs of our constituents, not those in Israel or Palestine.

That is a general comment but, as highlighted by the other speakers, the very use of some of the terms in this motion, certainly to my reading (and I am not sure whether that is the intention of the mover) indicate a strong bias towards the Palestinian side of the situation. The very use of the term 'Al-Nakba' (or 'the catastrophe' in English) suggests a bias against the Israeli side of the situation. Quite simply, in Family First's view, the creation of Israel was not an Al-Nakba or a catastrophe at all; it was a legal act of the United Nations in 1948.

Clearly, under law, Israel has a right to exist and that needs to be acknowledged by all sides of the conflict before a real discussion can start. Until that occurs I do not think we will have any progress in that part of the world on the issue of the Palestinian people. Certainly, there has been suffering by the Palestinians and no-one disputes that—and I am sure the Israelis would acknowledge that. However, this motion does not go anywhere near far enough in balancing the ledger to get Family First's support. I repeat: the creation of Israel was not a catastrophe; it was a legal act by the United Nations in 1948.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:57): I am deeply disappointed by what I have heard in response to this motion. It was an attempt at balance. People have talked about balance, but earlier this year there was a motion moved by the federal government which was supported by the opposition, and there was a formal luncheon in Parliament House recognising the 60^th anniversary of the creation of Israel. That motion gave no consideration at all to the impact that had had on the Palestinian people. In framing the wording of this motion I was extremely careful not to condemn or congratulate anyone, but to put something in there as a recognition of the history of the past 60 years.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink talked about her time over there and having a guard travelling in the car with her. If she had read what I had to say when I moved the motion, she would know that she was more at risk of having a car accident and dying from road trauma than she was from any attack from the Palestinians. The road statistics in Israel far outweigh any of the deaths that occur in Israel as a consequence of this conflict.

A comment was made about the suitability of motions regarding international issues being debated in this chamber. This chamber has, on numerous occasions, debated motions about international issues. I believe we should look at these things—particularly in light of what the Hon. Mr Hood said—so that we can service the needs of our constituents. There is a considerable number of displaced Palestinians living in South Australia. They are people who, as a consequence of what has happened in Israel and Palestine, have no home—as in a homeland. They are not allowed to return to the land of their birth. I would have thought that that is something that should be considered by members of this chamber. I really am quite devastated that there is no support on this, but I indicate, for the Palestinian constituents in South Australia, that I will be dividing on this motion so that they can see how the Labor, Liberal and Family First parties (and anyone else) vote on this issue.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (2)

NOES (14)

Majority of 12 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

[Sitting suspended from 18:04 to 19:45]