Topics: Pro-terrorist demonstrations in Australia; Troy Bell;
09:20AM ACST
30 September 2024
David Bevan: Simon Birmingham is the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in the federal parliament. He’s also South Australia’s most senior senator from the Liberal Party. And he joins us now. Good morning, Simon Birmingham.
Simon Birmingham: Good morning, David. Good to be with you.
David Bevan: I think it’s fair to say that some people have, while some people have very passionate feelings about what’s going on in Gaza and then across in Lebanon and in Israel, on all sides of this, there would be a lot of other people who would be watching the tellies, particularly over the weekend, would just be disturbed to see angry people protesting over something that has torn apart another portion of the world. I’m not singing the praises of the people who have these concerns. I’m just saying that there would be a lot of people who would just look at this and say, I don’t understand, I really don’t, but I’m just really worried that these disputes are coming to our streets.
Simon Birmingham: David, I think they are very genuine reflections of many, many Australians. I suspect the vast majority of Australians who don’t wish to see foreign conflicts imported onto Australian soil, and we should all act in ways that are respectful and considered, and certainly don’t celebrate the work or lives of terrorists and terrorism. And tragically, that’s what we did see over the weekend, that people waving around images of Nasrallah or the Hezbollah leader who had been killed by an Israeli strike. This is a listed terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of many for much mayhem, and there is nothing to celebrate there. The full force of our laws should be used to send a clear signal that that type of celebration and those types of attitudes have no place in Australia, and that whilst people are absolutely free to protest against the actions of the Israeli government, to call for peace and to hold their views strongly. They should draw the line when it comes to bringing violence into Australia, or to celebrating or promoting terrorism in any way at all.
David Bevan: Are you saying that if somebody turns up to protest over what’s going on there, and they’re carrying a picture of the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, they’ve committed an offence?
Simon Birmingham: Well, it will be for the federal police and prosecutors to work through. But we do have laws about the promotion of terrorist symbols and the way in which these laws have been developed, similar to laws against the glorification of Nazi symbols and slogans. Now we also saw the waving of Hezbollah flags, the wearing of Hezbollah symbols. It wasn’t just the showing of an image of this Hezbollah leader. So, it will be for the police and prosecutors to work through. But it seems if these laws are to be effective, it seems hard to believe that they have not been broken over the weekend. Given the extent of actions that were undertaken.
David Bevan: Which is your way of saying as a layperson it looks like they’ve broken the law, and they should be prosecuted for carrying the picture and for the other Hezbollah symbols. If you’re on video carrying the picture with the Hezbollah symbols as well, it’s pretty clear you’re supporting a terrorist organisation, and you should be prosecuted.
Simon Birmingham: Effectively. That’s right, David, it will be for the police and others to work out which symbols in what way. But in totality, it is very clear people were celebrating Hezbollah and cheering it on and doing so by waving around it’s symbols and the Parliament passed laws that made that a crime and those laws should be upheld by the Albanese Government.
David Bevan: That would take it to- that would escalate the management of these issues to a new level, wouldn’t it? I mean, we’ve been seeing this outpouring of emotion and grief and anger for about a year now, but to do that would actually take it to a new level. And sometimes, maybe the authorities think just the best thing to do is just calm the farm and not cause any grief, but to do that.
Simon Birmingham: Well, to do that would be to ensure that we are upholding our laws as we should, and to send clear signals. And what’s been lacking from too much of the government and in leadership generally across Australia since October 7th, has been absolute clarity about where the lines are drawn. As I said before, people are free to protest against the actions of the Israeli government if they want. And of course, that’s part of our free society, a much freer society than Iran, who sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas allow, for example, in their society. But those protests and those actions in our country do have limits when it comes to things that incite anti-Semitism, that incite hatred or that promote terrorism. And we should have been clear at calling that out from the very moment on October the 8th, when we saw flares being lit and horrific chants being made on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, and every leader in Australia should have been clear and consistent in doing so. And that type of leadership may have seen some of the rise in antisemitism that we’ve tragically seen since then that has created fear and division in parts of our community.
David Bevan: Before you go, I think it’s fair to say South Australia’s most senior liberal, you’re in the federal Parliament, not the state parliament. But what do you make of the Troy Bell matter. What should the South Australian Parliament do with Troy Bell?
Simon Birmingham: It’s a time for the Parliament to show clarity and leadership. It’s not unreasonable to await sentencing, but once sentencing and the process is concluded, Mr. Bell has been found guilty of serious crimes that would appear to render him ineligible to sit in the parliament, and the Parliament should take action to uphold its standards and values and declare that seat vacant.
David Bevan: What about this argument that the Premier is entertaining? That, along with a whole lot of other MPs, that perhaps they should cut him some slack on whether or not he’ll appeal.
Simon Birmingham: Well, David, I heard you ask what I thought was a pretty fair question to the Premier there, and that is that judges make decisions to put people in jail after they’ve been found guilty, and those people may go on and appeal, but they start serving their time. We have the presumption of innocence, and it implies until proven guilty. Mr. Bell has been proven guilty and guilty of serious crimes, and leadership is warranted by the Premier and the Parliament to show and uphold the standards that are in place. And I think it would be outrageous if, beyond the point of sentencing, we saw a situation where Mr. Bell was allowed to continue to operate as a member of Parliament, despite having been convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from essentially disadvantaged children and educational institutions.
David Bevan: Why would the Parliament need to wait for sentencing? Because wouldn’t the verdict be enough for them to act?
Simon Birmingham: Well, there is the technicality that a judge could choose not to record a conviction. Now, I think that’s inconceivable that that would occur in the case of Mr. Bell. But if you were to apply at least the right steps, it’s probably reasonable to await those few weeks or however long it takes for the judge to hand down sentencing. Have the clarity that the conviction has been properly recorded in addition to the finding of guilt. And then I think you’ve addressed all questions that need to be met.
David Bevan: But Simon Birmingham, you’re saying the moment the judge sentences Troy Bell, the Parliament should say, right, that’s it. You’re out. Troy. And that’s it.
Simon Birmingham: And I can’t imagine you’d find a lawyer who’s going to say the judge is going to walk in in this case and say, I’m not going to record a conviction given it’s such a minor or irrelevant matter. So, I think, the writing is on the wall, and the clarity from the state’s political leaders should be as soon as the parliament sits at the first occasion after the sentencing, the Parliament will move to declare the seat vacant and get on with it.
David Bevan: And what do you think of this business of the taxpayers paying for his legal fees?
Simon Birmingham: David, look, I think instinctively we would all say no. But obviously there are rules and processes that apply. I think more universally in terms of how criminal cases and defendants are treated, and it’s for the state government to make sure that they should apply consistently, whether you’re a member of Parliament or any other citizen. And, and I think the access to legal aid, support or otherwise is something that should be determined fairly on its merits, regardless of who the individual is.
David Bevan: Well, they passed a law. The MPs passed a law saying if it’s one of us that’s investigated by ICAC, even if you’re convicted, we’ll pay your fees. I mean, that’s the whole point of this discussion. Simon Birmingham, he is not being treated in terms of his funding of his case like an ordinary person. They actually passed a law to make sure that he and others aren’t treated the same.
Simon Birmingham: The thing is that he’s incurred a lot of costs in relation to this. So I, not being a member of the state parliament, I haven’t followed closely as to how their laws work in relation to who pays for the legal fees, when or where. Mr. Bell, I understand, has faced huge legal fees that he’s paid for. Where or when he might be able to access something else, as I said, it should be consistent though. Under any laws for all parties. Now, under the ICAC laws, if other public servants or other people face convictions or charges, then my view is that they should be treated consistently too. But that’s as a statement of principle rather than being an expert in relation to the application of those laws.
David Bevan: Simon Birmingham. South Australia’s most senior Liberal MP, Senator and Shadow Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman. Thank you very much for your time.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks David, my pleasure.
[ENDS]