|
senate vote 2018-11-26#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-03-21 14:11:12
|
Title
Motions — Suspension of Standing Orders- Motions - Radical Islam - Denounce
Description
<p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice relating to formal business, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion:</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-11-26.212.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Barry O'Sullivan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/barry_o'sullivan) (Nationals), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) multiple Australian Islamic terrorists, including the Bourke Street terrorist, ISIS suicide bombers and would-be domestic terrorists, have links to the Hume Islamic Youth Centre,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) ABC's 4 Corners journalist and executive producer, Ms Sally Neighbour, writing for The Australian in 2006, stated that Hume Islamic Youth Centre Emir Mohammed Omran is a leader of "...the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association – now regarded as the most radical Islamic group in Australia",*
- >>
- >> *(iii) in the 2006 article, which reported on a meeting between Sheik Mohammed Omran and Abu Bakar Bashir, head of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings, Ms Neighbour describes Sheik Omran as "...well-connected in international Salafist circles. A Jordanian-born migrant to Australia, his friends included the British-based al-Qa'ida luminary Abu Qatada, whom Omran hosted in Australia in 1994. Interviews with Osama bin Laden and Abu Qatada were among the items featured in the online magazine Nida'ul Islam (Call to Islam), published by Omran's acolytes in the Islamic Youth Movement and read widely in Australia",*
- >>
- >> *(iv) despite repeated cases of radicalised lslamists attending the Hume Islamic Youth Centre, Sheik Omran this week criticised calls for imams to increase actions to combat extremism – with counterclaims that his greatest power was only to call Triple O when confronted with a threat – and instead accused Australia's police and security agencies of complacency over the movements of the Bourke Street Islamic terrorist, and*
- >>
- >> *(v) Sheik Omran, who is regarded as arguably Australia's most senior Salafist cleric, would face significant punishment and hardship if he was to make comparable criticism of Jordanian security agencies, where it is a criminal offence to criticise the king and government officials; and*
- >
- > *(b) calls on the Senate to:*
- >
- >> *(i) condemn radical Islam, whether in speech or deed,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) call on the Islamic community in Australia to continue to condemn radical Islam in speech and deed, and reaffirm its commitment to working alongside Australian security agencies to address radicalisation in all its forms, and*
- >>
- >> *(iii) call on Sheik Mohammed Omran to publically retract his criticism of police and intelligence services and denounce all radical Islamic speech and jihadism.*
<p class="italic">That general business notice of motion No. 1209 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</p><p>Once more—</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>You're a laughing stock.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>I won't be lectured by the Greens. I won't be lectured by a party that has today engineered an inability of this Senate to talk about the terrible, terrible culture within its own party.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>It was Labor!</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Listen—can I say, Madam Deputy President, it's not raining outside; I didn't come down in the last shower. You couldn't do it yourself. You had to go to Labor to get it done.</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p><p>Well, what we got is—we see the reformation of a coalition as we approach elections.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator O'Sullivan, could you resume your seat, please. Senator Leyonhjelm.</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>Senator Di Natale has just referred to Senator O'Sullivan as a moron and a fool. I ask you to invite him to withdraw.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Leyonhjelm, I did not hear that. But if any senator did make disparaging remarks directly about another senator I would ask them to withdraw. Senator O'Sullivan, please continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>I'm happy to have a debate about morons and fools with the Greens anytime they like. But here we go again: a very serious motion, this time around issues to do with national security, is presented to the floor of this Senate and I'm denied the formality to allow people to place their vote. All I can assume is that, when you're denied formality, it's an indication that those denying it would have voted against the motion, as is true when I deny formality. It then follows that on such a significant issue of national security the Greens have now indicated that they don't want to be involved in a national discourse within this Senate, within this parliament, over such a serious issue. They don't want the question tested. This motion has been well thought through. It's a motion that is well structured and based in fact. It simply condemns the behaviour and the radicalisation of young Muslims in our country. We've seen recent events again. We know some of these institutions are hotbeds of radicalisation. This simply endeavours to lift awareness to address those issues. But this is about freedom of speech again. The denial of formality is about freedom of speech. You can't put—</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>You just denied formality yourself!</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>I'll respond to that interjection. I did put you on notice that it's a special this week at Ronald McDonald's—two for one: if you try and silence me, I'll silence you twice, and we'll go until there are no motions debated on the floor of this Senate, if that's what you choose to do. There is absolutely no blink in me. This has been going on over a period of time, where we've tried to put significant, important issues to the floor—</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p><p>I'll tell you what: there's a hell of a lot of noise coming out of them now. There wasn't much noise when we were talking about rape and sexual assault on members of their political party. Their heads were down. They were absolutely silent at that time because they condone it. Denial of formality here suggests to me that they are not against the idea of radicalisation of young Muslims affecting the national security of this country. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. You should go back to being silent. That's when you make your best contribution.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that these are significantly important issues, and it goes all the way back to the first denial of formality that started this race to the bottom, which has been going on for couple of months. It started this race to the bottom and stopped people having a voice in one of the most important chambers in the country. What we say here and how we attach ourselves to a question and whether we support or don't support a particular issue is significant. Australia watches us. They do watch. I'm surprised at how many people don't have a hobby and spend their afternoon watching question time and now general notices of motion.</p><p>I'm happy, at any given time, as soon as I see a white flag anywhere—a hanky will do—to allow every motion to go to this floor to challenge each of us to determine how we will vote and support it. To deny people the ability to put serious motions about national security, about late-term abortions—</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p><p>I was not. What do you think I am?</p><p class="italic">Senator Di Natale interjecting—</p><p>There we are. Give me more! It just inspires me. It keeps me going. I live on it. It is the fuel in my tank to hear you people. It's the fuel in my tank, because I will tell you what: it brings up the bile in my throat that you would deny this chamber the opportunity to criticise sexual aggression, complaints of rape that were not dealt with by each and every one of you, if the media reports are correct. This is about freedom of speech. This race to the bottom will continue. I'm happy to make a very significant contribution until we're allowed to debate questions of importance to our nation.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>I find myself in furious agreement with Senator O'Sullivan. This is a most serious motion. Normally if someone is going to deny formality for something there would be a rational reason for it. We're yet to hear that rational reason. But I have heard arguments from the Greens party that they weren't the ones that denied formality, even though I did distinctly hear Senator McKim's voice deny formality to it.</p><p class="italic">Senator McKim interjecting—</p><p>Here they go up again, biting again and again and continuing to chime in. I'm surprised they don't want do have a discussion about radical Islam because normally they're very happy to talk about how the rest of Australia is racist—because they believe that Islam is a race—or the fact that we are over-egging a threat.</p><p>But let me make a point to you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I sat next to this odious character—Sheik whatever he is—who went on to tell me that no Muslim has ever committed a crime in the history of the world. That's what he said to me. He said that Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia weren't responsible for the falling of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. This is the delusional character who purports to speak on behalf of Muslims in this country. He is an out-and-out nut job—I make no bones about that—and his brand of Islam is nutty. It is chaotic; it is dysfunctional. And the Greens will not allow it to be condemned. They've joined up in the past. They've joined up with Iranians, as the Iranians are persecuting their own citizens and hanging homosexuals. It's like a bizarre sort of red-green alliance. They've defended this sort of nonsense for far too long. Now they're denying formality to this chamber, which is their right. But they are denying formality for this chamber to pass a motion, a statement of intent, condemning the ideology of the rabid feral dogs who are out there trying to butcher Australian citizens.</p><p class="italic">Senator McKim interjecting—</p><p>This is the disgrace. I note the huffing and puffing from Senator McKim over there. He's huffing and puffing as, just last week or the week before, we had one of these radical converts stabbing people and taking lives in the Bourke Street Mall, as referenced in this motion. Where were the Greens condemning that? They weren't. They are shameless. Now they're denying formality to this chamber to pass a resolution, which is absolutely sympathetic. It is in keeping with what is important to the Australian people: a safe and orderly society. They will welcome people from all over the world, but they will have no time for the extremists who are seeking to radically overthrow, overhaul or damage the Australian citizenry and our way of life.</p><p>There is no more radical and dangerous ideology in this chamber than what is sitting in the Greens, because we know they are prepared to cover up the slights against the Western world, if it supports their goals. We know they are prepared to cover up the misogyny, the misandry, the sexual abuse, the rape allegations and the complaints against their own organisations, if it will further the global Greens cause. We know that they have no regard for truth or fact. They are prepared to peddle any fiction in the name of growing their own support base.</p><p>Denying formality on such a significant motion is another example of just how out of touch this radical and extreme Greens movement is with what the Australian people expect. For those who say we pass too many motions in this place, very few, if any, are more serious than this. This is not a platitude. This is not just a spurious political stunt. This is about our national security and it is about uniting the Australian people—uniting this chamber—and yet we find it fosters division because of the radical elements that are at work here.</p><p>Radical Islam is a dangerous ideology, just like the radical Greens movement is a dangerous ideology. I'm amazed. They always like talking about identities and they love talking about the alphabets, Muslims, vegans and everyone else who is apparently marginalised in society, but when it comes to sticking up for the rest of Australia—for those people who entrust this place and this government and successive governments with their national security—where do they go? They go missing. They deny formality. It is an indictment upon them.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I want to be clear that the Labor Party did not deny formality, but we would oppose this motion. Firstly, I want to reflect on the concerns, or reservations, many senators have about how formal business is being managed in this place. I understand, on this occasion, the government will support this suspension of standing orders. It's their business agenda. If they want to allow it to be diverted in this fashion, who are we to necessarily compromise that? But, in relation to this motion, I want to make it clear that Labor firmly believes that the Muslim community is already providing valuable cooperation with security and enforcement agencies. The security agencies themselves say that this cooperation is one of the most important tools they have in the fight against extremism and terrorism.</p><p>Labor abhors violent extremism in all its forms. Singling out one community is rarely helpful. This motion is a sad attempt at a stunt. Division gives terrorists and those who wish to do us harm exactly what they want.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>They want us silenced.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>The vast majority of Muslims make significant and valued contributions to Australian society, not as Senator O'Sullivan just interjected. Australian Muslims are a valued part of the Australian community. We want to be clear: the blame for terrorist attacks does not lie with them. We must all work together to stop self-radicalisation before it begins.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I don't want to talk so much about the substance of the motion, although I can't understand why anyone would oppose a motion that calls upon the Islamic community in Australia to continue—continue—to condemn radical Islam in speech and deed and reaffirm its commitment to working alongside Australian security agencies to address radicalisation in all its forms. In spite of what Senator Collins just said, I can't understand why anyone in this chamber would not want to support at least that aspect of the motion. I also note in passing that it calls upon Sheikh Omran to publicly retract his criticism of police and intelligence services and to denounce all radical Islamic speech and jihadism. Again, whilst that may cause some concern to some, I would think that most couldn't really object to that call to action in this motion.</p><p>But why I speak in support of the motion of my colleague Senator O'Sullivan, also supporting the words of Senator Bernardi, is that this again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. It's interesting to note that the Labor Party denied that they were the ones who denied formality.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Well, we weren't.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I accept that, Senator Collins. But I also note that the Greens denied that it was them, so it must have been the Xenophon party or the Independents. I understand that the Greens political party did deny formality. Why I support this motion of Senator O'Sullivan is that it demonstrates, yet again, the ultimate hypocrisy of the Greens political party. I'm not sure that I particularly supported Senator O'Sullivan's previous motion highlighting the sexual harassment and misdeeds of the Greens political party. I hadn't seen it before and I hadn't formed my opinion on what we should do. But I do think that these things should be allowed to be put to a vote. But the Greens had a no problem in that instance in denying—</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>We didn't do it!</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>You didn't? Okay.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>He doesn't know what he's talking about.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Macdonald has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask senators to respect that.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|