|
senate vote 2023-11-13#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-02-09 09:11:24
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely to allow a motion relating to the trial of whistleblower David McBride to be moved immediately.</p><p>President, as we gather here today—indeed, as our day commenced in the Senate—the trial of David McBride commenced just a few short kilometres from here in the ACT Supreme Court. The trial is set to commence of David McBride, a brave Australian, a whistleblower whose conscience could not allow him to be silent while he had evidence of war crimes committed by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan and nobody would listen to him. Nobody in his chain of command would act. Nobody in the oversight committees was willing to act to commence an investigation of the evidence that David McBride had. He had tragically compelling evidence that Australian soldiers—a minority of Australian soldiers, but Australian Special Force soldiers—had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.</p><p>When he tried and tried and tried to bring that to the attention of the ADF through the chain of command and every door was shut on him, eventually his sense of duty, his sense of what of right, led him to blow the whistle and tell the public about what had happened. And thank God he did. Thank you, David McBride, for what you did. And I thank other brave whistleblowers for what they have done. Think about the blowing of the whistle on the robodebt scandal and how whistleblowers were silenced and marginalised. Think about Richard Boyle who blew the whistle on appalling practices in the ATO, to be hounded out of the ATO and also prosecuted, despite being vindicated by a Senate inquiry and an internal ATO inquiry. David McBride's allegations have been vindicated by an independent review and report, which detailed dozens and of Defence Force war crimes.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Point of order: the Senate does have a subjudice convention which is intended to avoid debate or inquiry which might cause criminal procedures currently before the court to miscarry or reach conclusions other than the evidence presented in the case. I would make the point that Senator Shoebridge is speaking directly about the merits of a criminal trial which is commencing today. I understand that he has a political view. He's entitled to that view, but this chamber ought to be very careful about making judgements, particularly in criminal matters such as the ones he is currently expounding. I'd ask Senator Shoebridge, who is very careful to exhort me and others to observe appropriate Senate convention, to consider ensuring that his remarks in this regard are responsible.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, I'd just ask that you be careful with your comments.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>To the point of order: there are two points. First of all, these are matters before the Supreme Court, a superior court of record, and you'll be aware that the commentary on procedure and subjudice takes a different approach to Supreme Court matters. But more fundamentally, if I'd been allowed to complete my remarks, you would note that they are directed to the executive function under section 71 of the Judiciary Act, and there is nothing in any prior ruling, practice or procedure which prevents this chamber from critiquing and publicly critiquing actions of the executive, which I intend to do.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, based on the point of order, I'm asking you to reflect and exercise caution where applicable. Please proceed.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>So we have this situation. David McBride, the whistleblower, the truth-teller, not only blew the whistle but had his actions vindicated by an independent inquiry detailing dozens and dozens of incidents of war crimes. I know the government doesn't want to hear this. I know they'd rather this debate didn't happen in the Senate. They would like to just quietly see David McBride put in jail for telling the truth, because that's their action. We say this: there is one person who can stop this, one person who can actually listen to the truth and listen to all of that rhetoric that we got from Labor when they were in opposition. That person is the Labor Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, who with a flick of his pen could end the prosecution of David McBride, who faces the very real prospect of years and years in jail simply for telling the public the truth about war crimes.</p><p>While David McBride is facing trial today, not a single member of the ADF who committed the war crimes has been brought to trial. There is one pending prosecution, but the first person to face trial, the first person to face jail, is not those who disgraced the uniform of the ADF and committed war crimes but the whistleblower, David McBride. The voices that have been forgotten in this debate, which are written out by the Attorney-General when he refuses to take this action—the most powerful voices, the ones we should listen to first and foremost—are the voices of those Afghan families and communities who saw their brothers and their sons murdered and have not received an apology, have not received respect, have not received a cent of compensation. They look at the Australian government trying to put in jail the whistleblower, and they look with disgust and are right to do that.</p><p>What does Australia stand for when we have compelling evidence of troops committing war crimes and the person we prosecute, the person the Albanese government wants to jail, is the lawyer and the whistleblower? I commend this motion to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>The Senate clearly set out what its objectives are for today by passing the previous motion, and I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">David Fawcett</p><p>The question is that the question be put.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-13.16.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to end debate and instead vote on the question straight away.
-
-
|