Topics: Israel takes out Hezbollah leaders; Parliament October 7 motion; Albanese’s Tourettes comment;
08:05AM AEST
9 October 2024
Michael Rowland: But first to that breaking news this hour that Israel says it has killed senior Hezbollah leaders who may have taken over leadership of the armed terror group. For his take, let’s bring in the Shadow Foreign Minister, Simon Birmingham, at Parliament House. Simon Birmingham, good morning to you.
Simon Birmingham: Good morning. Michael, good to be with you.
Michael Rowland: Do you welcome this news from Israel?
Simon Birmingham: Michael, nobody is ever going to least of all the Coalition, mourn the death of terrorist leaders. These are people who bring great despair and destruction, not just to those who they target, but to those who they hide amongst and beneath. And tragically, that’s what we have seen during the conflict over the last 12 months in Gaza and in Lebanon, that the terrorist infrastructure, the storing of weapons, the building of tunnels, the building of those terrorist capabilities all too often has occurred embedded within civilian infrastructure in places that put Lebanese people, in the case of Hezbollah or Palestinians, in the case of Hamas, put those people in danger, as well as the Israelis who they target. That’s all part of the shameful act of those terrorist organisations.
Michael Rowland: Okay, let’s go to the back and forth in Parliament yesterday about the October 7th commemorative motion. Why couldn’t the Coalition bring itself to support a motion put up by the Government that mourned the Israelis killed in the terror attack on October the 7th at the same time, though, recognised the pain and suffering of people in Gaza and now, sadly, in Lebanon too?
Simon Birmingham: Because, Michael, there were some clear and concerning absences from the motion, as well as some significant points of policy difference that the government had forced into the motion. The motion, unlike the one that had been passed last year, omitted to say that it recognised Israel’s inherent right to self-defence and supported Israel in the protection of its civilians. And it’s a question for the Government as to why they were unwilling to repeat those words that were contained in the motion last year. Equally, this motion, in talking about a two-state solution omitted the key point that has been a long-standing part of bipartisan policy in Australia until this government trashed that, and that is that it needs to be a negotiated two-state solution. There is not a fast-track pathway to recognise a Palestinian state without resolving those difficult questions around borders, rights of return and security guarantees. So, we saw some fundamental differences and unfortunately, despite efforts, the Government was not willing to compromise on those.
Michael Rowland: Well, let’s break a couple of those points you make down. I’m looking at clause ten of the Government’s motion yesterday. It says, and I quote, directly condemns Iran’s attacks on Israel and recognises Israel’s right to defend itself against these attacks. What is wrong with that? Getting to the first point you made there.
Simon Birmingham: So, the express wording that that we wanted to have there, and that would have been more consistent with what had been done 12 months ago, was to reiterate that it stands with Israel and affirms its inherent right to defend itself. These are some key and traditionally used words and to protect its citizens. Now-
Michael Rowland: But isn’t that semantics, Simon Birmingham? Again, it recognises Israel’s right to defend itself against these attacks you’ve just inserted inherent. But fundamentally, isn’t that what the government was getting at with this clause.
Simon Birmingham: Michael, it is key in these matters and its why words do matter through these processes as to indeed how you recognise a state, how you recognise its right to self-defence, the way that that is described, and consistency of language also matters. And the fact that the Government was varying that language and unwilling to move in those matters, unwilling to be consistent with what it had said 12 months ago, was a point of concern to us, and remains so.
Michael Rowland: What about the other point of difference the Coalition had with the government? You had an issue with this clause stressing the need to break the cycle of violence and supporting international efforts to deescalate for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon. What’s wrong with that?
Simon Birmingham: Again, it goes to precisely what it is you’re seeking there. We’re not against a ceasefire, but it needs to be a properly negotiated ceasefire that is actually going to provide for enduring security, enduring opportunity for a peaceful resolution for all parties. Not just a ceasefire that simply stops hostilities and enables the terrorists to regroup, to rearm and as they have sought to do, repeat the atrocities that occurred on October 7th last year.
Michael Rowland: But isn’t that is what the government wants? That’s what countries like the United States, the UK, France, Germany, Japan want a ceasefire. Achieving that lasting goal as you set out, but also perhaps ensuring the latest death toll in Gaza of 41,000 doesn’t climb to, say, 45,000 or 50,000.
Simon Birmingham: Well, Michael, we mourn every innocent life that is lost and none of us take any pleasure in seeing the death toll climb, whatever the numbers may be. But ultimately, it is important to see terrorists defeated here, and that no country could live alongside the type of terrorist threat that presented itself in the way that it did on October 7th last year, and that if there are to be ceasefires. I think last time we spoke, we were talking about a ceasefire proposal in relation to Hezbollah and Lebanon. And critically, that ceasefire proposal was based upon UN resolution 1701, which would seek to create a free zone, if you like, in southern Lebanon an almost demilitarised zone that could give certainty and safety to Lebanese people and Israelis alike to live near those border zones. Having that type of detail is critical in terms of any ceasefire, and to understand precisely what it is seeking to achieve. There have been other ceasefire proposals roundly rejected, rightly so, because they would have just enabled the terrorist groups to rearm and repeat their atrocities.
Michael Rowland: There were various discussions, reportedly between the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader about this motion before it was actually moved. Is it true the Prime Minister offered to put up two motions yesterday, one mourning the victims of the October 7th terror attacks and the other one recognising the harm this is all having on places like Gaza and Lebanon.
Simon Birmingham: I think there were various iterations that were tossed around in the couple of hours of discussions that took place, Michael. The Coalition had sought to reach out to the Government in the days ahead of parliament coming back, and the government only began discussions and provided any text yesterday morning. So, they didn’t leave a lot of time to properly work through these issues.
Michael Rowland: Do you have any regrets about the Coalition not stepping up yesterday and supporting the broad, substantive aim of the government’s motion, which was recognising those killed in the terror attack, but also recognising the many more killed in Gaza?
Simon Birmingham: Michael, I regret that we weren’t able to maintain the bipartisanship that existed 12 months ago. But that is largely because the Albanese Government has dramatically shifted parts of its policy position in those 12 months. Changed the wording in the resolution that was carried through 12 months ago, changed a decades long position in relation to how a two-state solution is negotiated and achieved. These have been significant changes by the Labor Government. It is not the Coalition who has changed position here. It is the Labor Party.
Michael Rowland: And just finally, quickly to one of our top stories, the Prime Minister going back to the House last night to apologise for accusing your colleague Angus Taylor of having Tourette Syndrome in a heated Question time yesterday, the PM said that attack was both unkind and hurtful, wrong and insensitive. Do you give the Prime Minister credit for stumping up with that apology?
Simon Birmingham: Well, yes. The Prime Minister clearly knows that he made a mistake and a serious mistake. The point I’d make, though, Michael, is imagine the sanctimonious outrage that would be coming from the Labor Party and the Greens political party and others if this had been Peter Dutton or a senior member of the Coalition.
Michael Rowland: Simon Birmingham, appreciate your time. Thank you.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Michael.
[ENDS]