MOTIONS
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:12): Listening to that contribution by the Australian Greens that suggests that this chamber would choose to censure somebody because of their skin colour shows absolutely how disgraceful the Australian Greens are. This chamber, despite its broad diversity of political views, only censures senators when it believes—despite our differences—that a senator has brought this chamber and this parliament into disrepute.
It is not a decision this chamber should take lightly; nor is it a decision that this chamber today takes lightly. But the fact is that Senator Thorpe last month stood up in the public arena at a pro-Palestinian rally in Melbourne and said, 'Burn down Parliament House.' That ain't no song lyric that I've ever heard. Senator Thorpe was being very clear to the people she was speaking to—because this is on form for Senator Thorpe.
She is a senator who does not believe in this institution. She has made that very, very clear through her entire career. So you can cover for her, but the fact is that Senator Thorpe is a part of our Senate.
She was sworn in as a senator—and I'll get to that later in my contribution. She was elected by the people of her state as a Green; she has since chosen to be Independent. She was sworn in as a senator and should be subject to the governing rules of this parliament, as we all are, because otherwise we may as well pack up, go home and be the anarchy that the Greens political party want us to be.
If Senator Thorpe wants to burn down the Australian Parliament House, I believe she is very much a modern-day Guy Fawkes. She's not coming in with a bunch of fireworks and some explosives to do the job in a physical way, but every single day she, just like the Australian Greens she was a part of, seeks to blow up the very democracy that we all come here to participate in.
Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator McKim. Senator McKim: I seek a ruling on unparliamentary behaviour.
Senator McKenzie—I listened very carefully—has just accused the Australian Greens of wanting to 'blow up democracy'. On the basis of your previous ruling, I ask you to require Senator McKenzie to withdraw that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, that was not my previous ruling, and I think you know procedure well enough to know that that was not my previous ruling.
Senator McKim interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it wasn't, Senator McKim, and we're not having a debate across the chamber. Senator McKENZIE: In an effort to assist the chamber, I do withdraw. And I confine my comments completely to Senator Thorpe's wanting to blow up democracy.
She absolutely wants to destroy the foundation and the freedoms— Senator McKim interjecting— Senator McKENZIE: I did withdraw, Nick. Senator McKim: I have a point of order. I acknowledge that Senator McKenzie has withdrawn her imputation on the Australian Greens, but she's just made the very same imputation on Senator Thorpe.
If it's good enough for her to withdraw it in regard to the Australian Greens, I'm going to stand up for Senator Thorpe, who's not in the chamber to stand up for herself, and ask that Senator McKenzie withdraw that comment in regard to Senator Thorpe as well. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Given this is a discussion on the words that Senator Thorpe said—and she did in fact use words very similar to that—I'm not sure that I can call it a direct imputation.
I will take advice, but I don't see how I can call that an imputation. I will give the call back to Senator McKenzie, and I will take advice. Senator McKENZIE: Thank you.
No-one thinks or alleges that Senator Thorpe was going to walk in with firelighters and matches and attempt to physically burn this building down, but we 're talking about incitement. Let's look at the context in which this senator was making these comments—feeding, on social media, aggrieved people who are given one side of the Gaza war's petition, feeding that hate, feeding that anger, fuelling division in our community.
It's in the context of having seen, globally, democracies and parliaments under attack. On 6 January 2021 an attack on the Capitol building saw thousands of supporters of the defeated president Trump storm the Congress. Senator McKim: They were far-right fascists!
Senator McKENZIE: Exactly. There were five deaths and 1,200 people charged— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! We started very well.
Senator Ruston was heard in silence. Let's try to get back there. Senator McKENZIE: There were five deaths and 1,200 people charged.
Similar attacks have occurred in Brazil in 2023, when 2,000 people were detained; in Germany in 2020; and in South Korea in 2019 and again in 2024. To think that buildings like this and the business we conduct in chambers like this can never be subject to violence is to be naive or to deliberately seek to defuse the actual conversation. When Senator Thorpe says that, in that context and in the global context, I don't think any of us in this place should take what we do here for granted, nor should we take for granted the fact we are always able to debate difficult topics on behalf of the really diverse group of people that send us here.
To try and make it about race is absolutely abhorrent and absolutely ignores what my contribution is trying to be. I vehemently argue with most of you most of the time. Senator Cox: Yes, we agree.
Senator McKENZIE: Agreed. But the reality is that what Senator Thorpe said in that context, in the moment—but also in the global situation of liberal democracy being under threat and being physically damaged—is real. I think the fact that it has been referred to the AFP and they've sent it off to their national security investigation team highlights the significant concerns that they have as an agency tasked with keeping us safe when we're faced with death threats for the work we do here in this place.
Fuelling political grievance to create mob violence is not hard. It has a tried-and-true methodology used by student organisations at many our universities and around the globe. But it is our job as leaders, all of us in this place, to solve our problems and our grievances democratically through the processes in this chamber, where we can debate difference—under the standing orders and the guidance of whoever's in the chair—willingly, robustly and aggressively but without violence.
Senator Thorpe's comments should be censured by this chamber. This follows on from multiple incidents, such as her modified oath and her consistent defiance towards authority and the very legitimacy of the Australian parliament and our constitution. These aren't just floppy documents that, on a cold night, you can use to start a fire.
They are very much the foundational, principled documents that set our country up to be envied around the world when it comes to equality, egalitarianism, freedom and democracy. Every time a senator in this place chooses to denigrate, disparage and destroy those very foundations, we are weaker as a whole because of it. This senator has done that continually.
When she said in her earlier comments, for instance, that the crown had actually dispossessed and caused genocide, she was rightfully censured at that point for conduct described as disrespectful and disruptive. Rather than censure Senator Thorpe, as they did last time she did this and attacked our institutions, the Labor Party is taking the weak step to talk about safe workplaces when everyone knows that this wasn't a misplaced song lyric.
This was a statement made to undermine our democracy and to incite a mob to view this place as something to try to destroy. She should be censured, and the Labor Party is weak for not supporting our motion. I hope that this debate will convince them to vote otherwise.
For the benefit of the Australian Greens, to assure them that it isn't about race, let's go through some examples of senators who have been censured. George Brandis, a former attorney-general, was censured over his treatment of former AHRC president Gillian Triggs. I hope the Greens note that he is not a senator of colour.
David Leyonhjelm was rightfully censured in 2018 over sexist slurs to Senator Hanson-Young. Fraser Anning was rightfully censured over comments blaming Muslim immigration for the Christchurch attacks. Senator Hanson has been censured for telling Senator Faruqi to 'piss off back to Pakistan'.
So far, I've only seen white people censured. Senator Faruqi: She hasn't been censured. We put up a motion, and you opposed it.
Senator McKENZIE: No, this is from the Parliamentary Library. Senator Thorpe has previously been censured in 2024, 46 to 12, for her outburst at King Charles III during a parliamentary reception in the Great Hall. Senator Babet has also been censured over offensive online comments.
Scott Morrison was censured in 2022 for secretly appointing himself to multiple ministries. The Greens come in here and, somehow, attack this chamber for being racist in the censure motion, but the facts actually tell another story. They don't like the facts, but the facts make it clear that the Senate takes the censure motion seriously and that, irrespective of which party you come from, if you denigrate our democracy, if you denigrate this chamber and this parliament, then you rightfully should be censured by this chamber.
I argue, and the coalition strongly argues, that Senator Thorpe did denigrate this chamber by inciting violence and degradation by calling on Parliament House to be burnt down. She has form with this behaviour. I commend the coalition's motion to the Senate that we uphold our chamber and censure this senator.