Matter of Public Importance (Parliamentary speech)

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (4.16 pm)—I find the ALP’s approach to this issue both offensive and hypocritical.

Mr Kelvin Thomson—On what basis?

Mr PYNE—I am going to explain it to you right now. Yesterday and today the Labor Party attempted in this House—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! I remind the member for Wills that he has been warned.

Mr PYNE—to link the coalition government, this administration, to Palestinian suicide bombers in a disgraceful attempt at attacking this government and linking it to something that they know we would never any truck with. Their actions are both hypercritical and offensive.

Mr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Herald Sun of 7 February containing exact evidence that wheat money was used to fund Palestinian suicide bombers.

Leave not granted.

Mr PYNE—The reason why the ALP’s actions are hypercritical is that the ALP’s record on Israel, in comparison with the government’s, does not bear close study. The government’s record on the support for Israel and its opposition to things like Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorism is peerless in the history of this federation. People like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the member for Casey and I have spent a career supporting the right of Israel to exist and the right of Palestine to have its own separate state and live peacefully with Israel—and to be linked to Palestinian suicide bombers by this opposition, by the member for Griffith, is utterly offensive. The ALP’s record on Israel, however, is at best ambiguous. In the last few years they have attempted to walk both sides of the street with respect to Israel. They have attempted to appeal both to the Palestinian—

Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments being made by the parliamentary secretary bear no relationship to the terms in which this debate has been listed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.

Mr PYNE—If the member for Throsby cared to read the matter of public importance she would find that it says:

“The failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia”

It could not be more broad. I am commenting with respect to the national security of Australia, because the security of Israel, our support for Israel and our opposition to terrorism is all about the national security of Australia.

The ALP’s record on national security is at best ambiguous and at worst disgraceful. The member for Fowler in this place only last year referred to the actions of Israel as creating a ghetto-like walled compound around the West Bank and Gaza. She also referred to concentration camps in relation to the state of Israel, which is deeply offensive to the Jewish people, given the history of the Jewish people and the Shoah during the Second World War. She also has referred in previous debates in this House in a most offensive way to Israel—

Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again wish to pursue the issue of relevance. I think these comments might be relevant in a debate about the respective positions of both political parties vis-a-vis the Middle East situation. They certainly are not relevant—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I think I have the gist of the point of order. But I think if the member for Throsby reads the MPI she will see that it says ‘the failure of the government to discharge its obligations in relation to the national security and trade interests of Australia’. So it is a fairly broad statement. The parliamentary secretary is in order.

Mr PYNE—It is a very broad statement. I point out to the member for Throsby that it was the member for Griffith who today and yesterday accused this government of aiding and abetting Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. I am responding to that because I am deeply offended as a person who in this House has stood up for the rights of Israel, has opposed terrorism for 13 years in a very public way. I took deep offence and chose not to take a point of order during question time because I knew I would have the chance to speak on this MPI later today.

The member for Fowler also in her speech last year referred to the state of Israel as being involved in ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people. The member for Sydney in this place has referred to Ariel Sharon as a war criminal—a man who lies today in a coma, ill, who has done more for peace in the Middle East by removing settlements from Gaza and bringing peace to the West Bank area than many other people in Israel in the last 10 years. The member for Sydney has referred to Israel as a rogue state. The member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, has given succour and support to the member for Fowler and the member for Sydney.

My point is that on this side of the House there has never been any ambiguity in our opposition to terrorism, in our opposition to Palestinian suicide bombers and in our support for the state of Israel. For the Labor Party to try in the last two days to link us to Palestinian suicide bombers is deeply offensive. They should hang their heads in shame for doing that and they should apologise to this side of the House.

The second reason I find this MPI utterly hypocritical is because of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party trying to clothe itself as the party which supports national security. It was only at the end of 2004 that the Labor Party—most members on the other side of the House today—supported Mark Latham to become the Prime Minister of Australia; a man that they knew, the member for Griffith must have known and the current Leader of the Opposition must have known did not support the United States alliance.

The most important touchstone of Australia’s national security is ANZUS, our alliance with the United States: the knowledge that the United States and Australia support each other in the event of ever facing a conflagration—which we hope will never happen—at some stage in the future. It has given us an alliance with the most important nation in the world today, the only behemoth in world political affairs. We are in the fortunate position of being closely allied to that country.

The Leader of the Opposition in the previous parliament did not support that alliance. The former Leader of the Opposition abused the President of the United States, George Bush. He called him a dangerous man. He said, in fact, that the alliance was the last manifestation of the White Australia policy. He said the US alliance is a funnel that draws us into unnecessary wars, first Vietnam and then Iraq. In his diaries, he makes it perfectly clear that if he had become Prime Minister the US alliance would have been put seriously at risk. He makes it clear in his diaries, in terms of national security, that he did not regard the US alliance as being as important as this side of the House did. So for this MPI to suggest that this side of the House has put national security and our trade interests at risk is deeply offensive to me and is obviously hypocritical. The Labor Party stands condemned for it.

The member for Griffith and the Leader of the Opposition supported the member for Werriwa, as he was then, in the election to become Prime Minister. They knew that he did not support the US alliance. They might have backed themselves in the vain hope that, if he was elected, they might have been able to control him. But, as various cameramen and others have found in recent years, the former member for Werriwa is not easily controlled. As the Treasurer said yesterday about what the former member for Werriwa would have done to the economy, as he did to a camera, we can say that he would have done the same thing to the US alliance if he had been elected as Prime Minister.

This side of the House can never stand condemned for putting our national interests at risk. This side of the House has fought the war on terror, enthusiastically tried to defeat terror wherever it finds it around the world. This side of the House supports liberty. It supports freedom. It supports democracy. It is trying to make a difference in Iraq. That is why we went into the war in Iraq: to try and bring about a change in world affairs, to defeat terrorism, to create democracy, to give people in the Middle East an opportunity to see that democracy can work in their nations and to embrace it, because democracies tend not to go to war against each other.

The other side of the House, the Labor Party’s side of the House, did not support the war in Iraq. They made it very clear. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said he would withdraw the troops from Iraq before the job was done. So for the member for Griffith to stand up here and clothe himself in the hypocrisy of this MPI in an attempt to make the coalition side of the House the side that does not support national security is a farce and a mockery. The Australian public would know that to their very bones.

The Australian public know that on national security, on the economy, it is the coalition that will deliver good government. The public know that, when it comes to national security, the Labor Party is a risk. It was a risk in the sixties, it was a risk in the seventies and it would have been a risk again in the war on terror across the world. For the ALP to lecture this government on national security is akin to General Pinochet lecturing the Chilean people about freedom of speech. It is akin to Henry VIII lecturing the English people about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of families.

What we have really seen here in this debate and for the last two days is the member for Griffith’s audition for the Labor Party leadership, which is going slightly off the rails for him because he knows he is not going to get a scalp because there is nothing for us to be ashamed of. He wanted to replace Simon Crean. He talked about it, and he held various press conferences outside his home in Brisbane. He wanted to replace Mark Latham. He did his Hamlet act: ‘Will I? Won’t I? No, I’ll stand aside for Kim Beazley.’ We all know that he did not have any voters in the Labor Party caucus. The member for Throsby knows that he had no votes in the Labor Party caucus. But it was a brilliant show business line and it got him a lot of publicity. He is now out to get Kim Beazley. He is more Macbeth today than he was Hamlet back in those days. And this is all an audition for his desire, his ambition, to lead the Labor Party—nothing more. (Time expired)