Page: 14599
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.31 p.m.]: Freedom of speech is a hard-won fundamental right central to our democratic system. But that right comes with responsibility. It can never be an absolute right. You cannot yell "fire" in a theatre. And that is why over the years successive parliaments have placed limits on free speech to preserve a greater right: the right of individuals to personal protection. We have legislated to prevent vilification on the grounds of race and sexual orientation. We have strong anti-defamation laws to prevent the vilification of individuals. Other jurisdictions such as Victoria have legislated to prevent racist and defamatory remarks being made under the guise of religious preaching. On December 17 last year the effectiveness of that law was upheld when the Victorian Civil and Administrative Council found two pastors of the Catch the Fire Ministry, Daniel Scott and Danny Nalliah, guilty of vilifying Islam under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001. Honourable members would be aware that this case has already been raised in this Chamber, by the Hon. David Clarke in his adjournment speech—
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: I would like to confirm that the Parliamentary Secretary is speaking in reply and not making an adjournment speech himself.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: On the point of order: the Parliamentary Secretary, in his new role in his first real job, indicated that he was replying to something the Hon. David Clarke said.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: No, he did not.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, he did. He was replying to comments from the Hon. David Clarke. The Hon. David Clarke has not made a contribution to the adjournment debate tonight.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! That is irrelevant. There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary is speaking in reply.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Honourable members would be aware that this case has already been raised in this Chamber, by the Hon. David Clarke in his adjournment speech on 23 February this year. It was a curious contribution to the debate because, while praising Australia as having "gained a well-deserved reputation as a haven for religious freedom for others to emulate", he then went on to give a very curious interpretation of that freedom. He claimed that our religious freedom is under threat—not from fear-mongers or neo-Nazis or book burners but from the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001. Mr Clarke described the passage of the legislation as "a black day for freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of speech". This sounded very black indeed, and I waited patiently to hear the exact nature of the legitimate religious doctrine, thoughts and speech the two pastors were prevented from expressing.
After all, the Victorian Act allows wide latitude provided what you say is said in good faith and is reasonable. This is what the two pastors said in 2001 in a pamphlet distributed around Melbourne, "Muslims are the enemy, and they want to take over Australia." This is what these two pastors believe passes for religious expression. But it gets worse. They claimed that the Koran promotes violence, killing and looting; that domestic violence is encouraged; that Muslims are liars; and that Muslims are demons. Pastors Scot and Nalliah claimed Muslims have a plan to overrun Western democracies through the use of violence and terror, and to replace those democracies with oppressive regimes. They claimed that Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it as an Islamic nation. They went on to say, "Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews, humiliate them and fight them until they accept true religion." They went on further to say, "Muslims have four wives and 10-12 children per family, and this is part of their plan to take over Australia." This is the sort of outrageous stuff they said. They went on to say that "Muslims have a plan to infiltrate the churches and parliament, that Muslims are satanic, and that Muslims are committed to taking over Australia through violence if necessary". It goes on and on and on.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: I have read the statements made by the two pastors that have been referred to. The only references they made in relation to some of those subjects were simply to quote from the Koran in a lecture they were giving to explain the Muslim religion.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! That is more a debating point than a point of order.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The honourable member is misrepresenting what happened.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary may resume his speech.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The member should check the facts before he makes a speech.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: These pastors went on to say:
If you attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity they may torture or execute you.
Muslims have control of who is granted immigration to this country.
These are some of the views that the Hon. David Clarke believes should be given free rein in this multicultural, tolerant society of ours, protected under the banner of free speech. I say in this House today that those are not acceptable views. This is just hatred, bigotry and contempt delivered from the protection of the pulpit. These words are not just bigoted and hateful; they are the opposite of Christian charity. There is no justification for such hate, misinformation and fear in any of the great religious books—not the Bible, the Koran or the Torah.
I am told that there is a warning in the New Testament to be aware of false prophets, of hypocrites who hide their evil intentions behind the mask of religious authority. It is no surprise, therefore, that Judge Higgins in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Council found that the pastors' comments were made for no religious purpose. They were not made in the usual course of promoting one set of religious beliefs apart from all others; they were simply hateful. Instead His Honour found:
Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements are likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims. They seek first of all to create fear in those who read the article of being harmed by Muslims.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: The honourable member just referred to the decision of Judge Higgins. I understand that that decision has been appealed to the Victorian Supreme Court. As this matter is now before the courts, what the honourable member is saying is prejudicial to a court case that is being decided in Victoria.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: I respect the experience of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, but it has been a longstanding position in this House that a matter is not sub judice if it is simply being considered by a judge, and, obviously, on appeal the matter referred to will be considered by a judge. I strongly doubt—and a number of judges have espoused this view and it is the view that has been held by a number of Presidents in various rulings—that a judge would be influenced by debate in this place.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I am persuaded by the arguments of the Hon. Peter Primrose and find that there is no point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary may continue.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: His Honour found:
Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements are likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims. They seek first of all to create fear in those who read the article of being harmed by Muslims.
One should not have to be a judge to recognise that. Anyone can see that these were spiteful and offensive things to say, destructive of community harmony and liable to inflame division in our community. It is beyond me why two men of God would want to say those words. It is also beyond me why the Hon. David Clarke, a member of this House—
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order. My point of order relates to Standing Order 91 (3). I have been listening carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks. Because of the way in which this so-called reply speech is being delivered at the end of an adjournment debate, quite clearly it is a badly concealed attempt to make imputations of improper motives and to personally reflect on a member of this House. It is an absolute disgrace that the first time this Parliamentary Secretary comes into the Chamber he behaves in this fashion.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order—
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I call the Hon. Peter Primrose on a point of order. The Hon. Don Harwin will resume his seat.
The Hon. Don Harwin: I am not finished, Madam Deputy-President.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): The member has finished and he will resume his seat.
The Hon. Don Harwin: If the Hon. Eric Roozendaal wants to behave in this way he should move a substantive motion of censure.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. Don Harwin will resume his seat. He has gone well beyond putting a point of order; he was actually debating the point. For that reason he no longer has the call. I call the Hon. Peter Primrose.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: My point of order relates to the comments made by the Hon. Don Harwin about my colleague. There is a distinction between seeking to impute improper motives, for example, in relation to the personality of an individual and whatever he or she may be doing, and then responding to arguments that have been made. The Hon. Don Harwin was seeking to impute improper motives to the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. However, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal was seeking in his contribution to address arguments that had been advanced by the Hon. David Clarke. There are two distinctions to be made. Standing Order 91 (3) refers to imputing improper motives to individuals as opposed to reflecting on arguments that have been advanced. If someone advances arguments in this place, it is only proper that those arguments are able to be contested.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I refer to the comments just made by the Government Whip. It was a good try. Earlier I agreed with his comments relating to the sub judice rule. However, it is quite clear that this carefully crafted contribution has been put together to impute improper motives on the part of a member of this House, the Hon. David Clarke. No other interpretation can be put on that whatsoever. Under Standing Order 91 (3) the Hon. Eric Roozendaal should be ruled out of order.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order. I listened very carefully to the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. He started off by saying that he wanted to talk about freedom of speech and he referred to the philosophical aspects of that topic. He referred to an horrific case in Victoria—and I agree with him that it was horrific—in which two pastors said a whole variety of things for which they have been found guilty. The sorts of things they said were in my view racist in the extreme. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal said periodically in his speech that the Hon. David Clarke defended those people. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal did not devote his speech to impugning the character of the Hon. David Clarke. It was quite in order for the Hon. Eric Roozendaal to express regret that a member of this House should defend those people in Victoria, but I believe that he devoted his speech to issues that he identified at the beginning of his contribution. His speech was not about the performance of the Hon. David Clarke.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Further to the point of order: The Opposition Whip, the Hon. Don Harwin, did not rise when the Hon. Eric Roozendaal was talking about the people in Victoria. The Hon. Don Harwin clearly got to his feet when the link was made between the contribution of the people in Victoria and a member of this House.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I hear thunder outside. You are wrong, Duncan; you've been judged!
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been judged by a higher spirit.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Those opposite may be making a mistake in indicating who is being judged. No-one is denying the Hon. Eric Roozendaal's right to speak about the situation in Victoria. But when he made the link to a member of this House he was clearly in breach of Standing Order 91 (3).
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Having regard to Standing Order 91 (3) and the adjournment speech of the Hon. David Clarke the other evening, I find that there is no breach of Standing Order 91 (3) because the Hon. Eric Roozendaal has been speaking about the topics and issues that were raised by the Hon. David Clarke in his speech, and he is perfectly entitled to do so. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal may continue.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is even more beyond me why a member of the nation's oldest legislature and a member of one of the nation's great political parties would want to endorse such people. Of all the causes to champion, it defies reason why anyone would want to go in to bat for two racists and to support their spiteful vendetta against an innocent minority group of Australian citizens.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You can't tell me that he's not having a go at the Hon. David Clarke. Listen to him!
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The interjections from Opposition members do not surprise me. They are trying to cover up their guilt about the sorts of people that they must share offices with.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: We're lucky we don't have to share one with you!
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition keeps hanging around with those sorts of people, he will be sitting on the Opposition benches for a pretty long time.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order!
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Since 2001 it is been difficult enough for Australia's law-abiding and hard-working Islamic communities to go about their business without fear and vilification. The protracted, savage attack on the Islamic community by these two pastors only makes that task more difficult, fanning the flames of fear and hatred and diminishing all of us as Australians. When Muslim women are spat on in the street and mosques are graffitied or torched, we know who to blame. We must blame not just the bigots responsible for such actions but also the hate mongers who inspire and encourage them and the misguided politicians who make excuses for them.
I am proud to say that there were many in Victoria and across Australia who stood with the Islamic community against these vile attacks, especially the Catholic and Uniting churches, which applied to intervene in the case in support of the Islamic Council. They were joined by numerous individual Muslims, Christians, Jews, Unitarians, Quakers and everyone else who gave their energetic support. They are in stark contrast to some members in this House. One, in particular, tainted by an allegation of racist road rage, which he chose to defend at 3.25 a.m.—
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: If this is not a personal reflection under Standing Order 91, I do not know what is. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal has again made remarks that are clearly intended to reflect personally upon a member and he should be sat down. Madam Deputy President, I ask you to call him to order.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: I have been listening very carefully to the debate and recently I have not heard the Hon. Eric Roozendaal even mention the Hon. David Clarke. Certainly the Hon. Eric Roozendaal was becoming quite passionate—I think rightly so—and listed the numerous churches in our community that intervened in the case in Victoria to support the Muslim community when confronted with the behaviour of the two pastors. I share the passion and the detestation that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal is expressing but he has not even mentioned the name of the Hon. David Clarke.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. David Clarke made a speech on an adjournment motion in this House on a road rage incident that was reported, I think, in the Daily Telegraph. In doing so, the member placed the matter on the public record, and I do not believe that reference to that matter by another member in a subsequent debate is in breach of Standing Order 91 (3). There is no point of order. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal may continue.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: One, tainted by an allegation of racist road rage—which he chose to defend at 3.25 on the final morning of the last parliamentary session—was in his very next speech a defender of convicted racists. This shadowy figure in the hard Right of the New South Wales Liberal Party, linked to attacks on Muslims at a Liberal Punchbowl meeting last year, linked to right-wing branch stacking and violence in the seat of Hawkesbury—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: It is one thing to speak on a matter that one feels strongly about. It is another matter to blatantly flout the rules and conventions that govern the proper operation of this House. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal is breaching those rules, and you, Madam Deputy President, are aiding and assisting him if you do not adhere to and uphold Standing Order 91 (3).
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: To the point of order—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is so blatant.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition no longer has the call. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is speaking to the point of order.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: My understanding of procedure is that a member who wishes to attack another member should do so by way of substantive motion. The speech by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal in its entirety is nothing but a planned attack on the Hon. David Clarke, point by point. Members have a right to attack the Hon. David Clarke if they wish, but only by using the correct procedures of the House.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: I have two comments. First, I do not know the standing order to which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile claims his argument applies. Second, I repeat the point I made in relation to an earlier point of order: if the Hon. Eric Roozendaal is launching an attack, he is doing so quite properly on a pair of people in Victoria—another State. There is no possible way that the rules that govern debate in this place with regard to attacks on members or the need for substantive motions have any application to a speech expressing the kind of devastation that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal has expressed about two people in another State of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: If the Hon. Eric Roozendaal were doing as the Hon. Jan Burnswoods says, the Opposition would not have a problem and I would not be taking a point of order. We did not take points of order when he was doing as the Hon. Jan Burnswoods claims. However, when the Hon. Eric Roozendaal decided to launch an attack on the Hon. David Clarke he was in breach of standing orders for the reasons I gave earlier. He has compounded that breach not once but three times now. On each occasion, Madam Deputy President, we have asked you to uphold the traditions and the standing orders of this House and you have rejected our requests. If you refuse again, we will have no option but to move dissent from your ruling.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I will not be threatened by such an argument. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was supposed to have been speaking to the point of order. I will not bow to pressure from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or to a threat of dissent from my ruling. I will rule on the point of order on the merits of the argument and not in response to the bullyboy tactics of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will refer to the rulings of former Presidents before I rule on the point of order.
In referring to rulings of past Presidents I draw the attention of members to a 20 March 1991 ruling, which states:
There is no doubt, calling upon the standard reference books on offensive words, et cetera, that according to the practices normally followed in this House offensive words may not be used against any member and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections upon members are considered to be highly disorderly.
Standing Order 81—
which is now Standing Order 91—
accords with what these reference volumes say on the matter. The practice of the House, based on the practice of the House of Commons, is that members can direct a charge against other members upon their character or conduct only upon a substantive motion that admits the distinct vote of the House.
I have not yet heard in the contribution of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal a charge against another member or upon another member's character or conduct that should be made by way of substantive motion. However, I caution the Hon. Eric Roozendaal that he should heed the ruling I have just read and ensure that his comments do not contravene the standing orders such that he could not proceed except by way of substantive motion. I rule that there is no point of order at this time, and the Hon. Eric Roozendaal may continue.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I appreciate that exposing the dark underbelly of the New South Wales Liberal Party is an unpleasant process for my colleagues across the Chamber. I understand the urgency on which they move points of order to hide the truth because it is never nice to have the darkest, the most sinister aspects of one's political party—
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The Hon. Eric Roozendaal just said that honourable members opposite taking points of order—referring specifically to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me—were taking points of order to hide the truth. I find that remark offensive. I will let my colleague speak for himself. I take points of order because I want to see the standing orders upheld, and the forms and practices of the House honoured.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I withdraw that remark. But it does not surprise me that the Liberal Party of New South Wales squirms when its dark underbelly is exposed in the light of day, particularly in this place, because its members would rather keep quiet about sinister characters and things that occur within the party. I really do understand the awkwardness that I am sensing here today. I feel very strongly about this issue because I believe that there are some in our community who need, when attacks occur on them or when they are vilified, somebody to stand up in this place and defend them, not because I have an alliance or allegiance but because we are all Australians. If I do not stand here today and do this, who will? When this matter was debated previously in this House there was deadly silence from the Liberal Party about what was said, and its members hoped that nobody noticed. Well, I noticed and I was sickened.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, to do something about this sinister blackness spreading through the Liberal Party—the continuation of nastiness, of vilification, of racism, which I find objectionable in this place. It offends me and it should offend every honourable member in this House. It should offend every Australian. And I will not be silenced by points of order or smart technical moves or by people claiming to hide behind the standing orders. I will not be silenced on those issues. I will stand up here again and again at every opportunity to put people in their place—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have been pretty quiet about the corruption in the Labor Party.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is right, Duncan, you would love to try to twist this debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that racism and vilification is a joke. How dare he say that to me! This is not about making political points, this is serious stuff.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I find the honourable member's comments to me offensive and I ask him to withdraw them. At no stage did I justify vilification or indicate that I found vilification to be a joke. I find those comments offensive and ask him to withdraw them.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I call upon the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, to assert his authority, to pull the ugly faction of the Liberal Party into line and to do it properly once and for all. John Brogden and the Liberals should put something on the record—
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Is the Hon. Eric Roozendaal prepared to withdraw his comments?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Which comments were they? I am not sure.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition took offence because he believed that you were calling him racist and that you were saying he thought vilification was a joke.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I withdraw that. There are too many interjections and I am finding it hard to respond.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): If the Hon. Eric Roozendaal wishes to withdraw the remarks, he should simply say, "I wish to withdraw the remarks".
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I wish to withdraw the remarks. I apologise to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if, in the heat of the emotion, I offended him in any way. It was certainly not my intention. I call on the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, to do something about this blackness spreading through the Liberal Party because it is coming to a point where action has to be taken. I will not allow this place to be misused. Nor will I allow people to stand up and defend racists and allow the Islamic community or any other community to be vilified in this place or any other place. I do not believe we should put up with this nonsense. We are not living in America's deep south: we live in a free secular society in which extreme right-wing views must be rejected. And in particular the views of members such as the Hon. David Clarke are unwanted and unwelcome.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until Tuesday 22 March 2005 at 2.30 p.m.
_______________
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:06 : Update this page