Thursday, 31 July 2025

Middle East conflict

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (14:26): My question is for the Premier. On 17 October 2023 the Premier moved a motion carried by this chamber stating that this house stands with Israel. With estimates of those killed directly by Israel’s attacks now passing 61,800 people, a number that does not include those buried under the rubble or dead from lack of food, water or medicine, is the Premier still content to stand with Israel, or is it now time for another motion, this time condemning Israel’s genocide in Palestine?

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (14:27): The member for Richmond refers to a motion that was considered by this house in the immediate aftermath of what was one of the most horrific terrorist attacks that we have seen in decades.

Ben Carroll interjected.

Jacinta ALLAN: Thank you – as the Deputy Premier has reminded me, the biggest loss of Jewish life since World War II. It was entirely appropriate that this house stood with the people of Israel, the Jewish community and indeed all good people around the globe condemning that terrorist attack. It reflects quite poorly on the member for Richmond and her Greens political opponents to want to continue to use a conflict a long way from our shores to drive political division that is only causing ongoing distress to not just members of our Jewish community but people across the community. We can both equally condemn the terrorist invasion and say we stand with the people of Israel and our Jewish community. But as I said at the Israeli Independence Day event a few weeks ago, we can equally too be critical, as we saw the Zionist Federation of Australia today say that Israel does need to ensure aid is being delivered to those who are desperately needing that support in Gaza. It is incumbent upon those of us a long way from this conflict to ensure that we do nothing to drive further grief and distress and further division. What makes it even more contemptible is it is being done for political purposes. It is being done because of politics. I say we saw that the Australian population rejected that politics of division. They rejected it in Wills and they rejected it in Macnamara.

Ben Carroll interjected.

Jacinta ALLAN: And in Melbourne, thank you. They rejected it because what we have here in Victoria is something precious: a multicultural, multifaith community that should be supporting one another. The behaviour of the extremists at the front door of the National Gallery of Victoria on Sunday was not activism, it was antisemitism. But equally too we can say to the Israeli government, ‘Please deliver aid.’ We can stand with world leaders and say, ‘Please make sure that we bring this conflict to an end.’ I stand with the community here in Victoria. We all want this conflict to end and reject the politics of division.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (14:30): I absolutely agree that we should be doing nothing to drive further grief, and so that is why it was so disturbing when this week Senator Wong confirmed that Australia ships F-35 fighter jet parts directly to Israel so that they can bomb Palestine. Despite her concern for loss of life, in the past eight months the Premier has met seven times with weapons companies that supply Israel.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear the member for Richmond’s question.

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Reflecting on the Chair is not honourable. Frankston can leave for half an hour.

Member for Frankston withdrew from chamber.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI: The minister has met seven times with weapons companies in the last eight months that supply Israel, and I can presume that it was not to beg them to stop, because the Victorian government supports these companies through contracts and funding programs and trade opportunities. So my question is: why is the Premier using taxpayers money to prop up a genocide, when we should do nothing to drive further grief?

Will Fowles: There are two elements to the point of order, Deputy Speaker. The first is that I am not sure in amongst all the ranting there that there was anything relating to government business. The second thing goes back to this test of what is a supplementary question. It is a three-part test as laid out in 55(1A) of the standing orders, namely that it has to ‘actually and accurately relate to the original question’ – that is the first element; secondly, must ‘relate to, or arise from, the answer’, not just the question; and, three, ‘must not be a separate question on the same topic’. I would submit that it fails all three parts of that test.

Ellen Sandell: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the question did directly relate to the Premier’s answer – in fact it quoted from the Premier’s answer – and it directly relates to government business, because it is about the use of taxpayer funding for programs that are involved in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which was directly the subject of the first question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the member for Ringwood’s point of order, I think government business is within the realm of taxpayer funds. I will allow the question to the Premier on the basis of its relation to the first question and her answer.

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (14:34): In answering the question, if you could allow me to speculate for a moment, would the member for Richmond stand up and condemn the workers in my electorate who make the Bushmasters, who are keeping Ukrainians safe? Would the member for Richmond make that same comparison for those workers in Bendigo – proud workers, good workers? And in those meetings that the member for Richmond referred to –

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand that it is an uncomfortable question for the Premier, but the standing orders are very clear that question time cannot be used as a way to attack the member asking the question, and I ask you to bring her back to the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Premier is allowed to have contrast and context in her answer, and I ask her to come back to the question.

Jacinta ALLAN: I say that because, yes, I did meet and I have met with representatives of the defence companies who employ people here in this state. One of the things one of those members said to me has stuck with me – that as a nation, if we are sending our young men and women off to protect our peace and democracy, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that they have the benefit of technology in terms of the equipment to protect their lives as they are protecting our freedoms and our rights in conflicts around the globe.