Division Description Changes — Motions — Israel Attacks: First Anniversary — 9th Oct 2024

Change	Division
senate vote 2024-10-09#9 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-10-27 11:25:50	Title Description ~~The majority voted against a paragraph (m) of the amended amendment, which means it failed.~~ The majority voted against a [paragraph (m)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-10-09.140.2) of the amended amendment, which means it failed. ### Amendment text > (m) affirms its support for a two-state solution, a Palestinian State alongside Israel, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;
senate vote 2024-10-09#9 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-10-27 11:25:20	Title ~~Motions — Israel Attacks: First Anniversary~~ Motions - Israel Attacks: First Anniversary - Two-state solution Description ~~<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—We will shortly be proceeding to vote on the paragraph in the resolution which deals with a two-state solution:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">… so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;</p>~~ <p>I understand, and I hope I am wrong, that the opposition and the Greens are not prepared to support that paragraph. Can I say to both the opposition and the Greens that that is not only a longstanding bipartisan and historical position; it is the position of the international community, it is the position of so much of the Palestinian leadership, and it is the position that is the only way in which we will, ultimately, see long-term security and peace for Israelis. If the Greens and the opposition combine to ensure that this parliament is not able to support a two-state solution—a longstanding commitment made by the international community when Israel was established, a longstanding commitment that would reflect the aspirations of both peoples—it really says something about the extent to which domestic politics is now perverting this debate in Australia. It is inconsistent with Australia's longstanding position, it is inconsistent with the international community, it is inconsistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is inconsistent with long-term security and peace for the people of Israel.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>by leave—The coalition will be opposing clause (m), and we will be opposing it, noting that the amendment we proposed was defeated on the opposition of the government. By opposing our amendment, which would have changed the 'support for a two-state solution' to being 'support for a negotiated two-state solution', the government critically tore up decades of bipartisan support. Senator Wong is being entirely misleading when she says that, in the position the coalition is taking, we are opposing longstanding bipartisanship. It is in fact the Albanese government that has reversed the position of longstanding bipartisanship, has walked away from the commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, where difficult questions and issues, such as security guarantees between the two parties, agreed borders and rights of return, would be settled to achieve a lasting and secure two-state solution. It is indeed the government that has rejected longstanding bipartisanship, that has changed position on these matters, and we will not, in a Senate resolution, be railroaded into supporting the government's revised form of wording. That is why we proposed an amendment consistent with the longstanding bipartisan position and, given the government chose to reject that longstanding bipartisan position, we cannot support this clause of the resolution.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that paragraph (m) be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ The majority voted against a paragraph (m) of the amended amendment, which means it failed. ### Amendment text *> (m) affirms its support for a two-state solution, a Palestinian State alongside Israel, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only op*tion to ensure a just and enduring peace;

~~Penny Wong~~
~~by leave—We will shortly be proceeding to vote on the paragraph in the resolution which deals with a two-state solution:~~
~~… so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;~~
I understand, and I hope I am wrong, that the opposition and the Greens are not prepared to support that paragraph. Can I say to both the opposition and the Greens that that is not only a longstanding bipartisan and historical position; it is the position of the international community, it is the position of so much of the Palestinian leadership, and it is the position that is the only way in which we will, ultimately, see long-term security and peace for Israelis. If the Greens and the opposition combine to ensure that this parliament is not able to support a two-state solution—a longstanding commitment made by the international community when Israel was established, a longstanding commitment that would reflect the aspirations of both peoples—it really says something about the extent to which domestic politics is now perverting this debate in Australia. It is inconsistent with Australia's longstanding position, it is inconsistent with the international community, it is inconsistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is inconsistent with long-term security and peace for the people of Israel.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
by leave—The coalition will be opposing clause (m), and we will be opposing it, noting that the amendment we proposed was defeated on the opposition of the government. By opposing our amendment, which would have changed the 'support for a two-state solution' to being 'support for a negotiated two-state solution', the government critically tore up decades of bipartisan support. Senator Wong is being entirely misleading when she says that, in the position the coalition is taking, we are opposing longstanding bipartisanship. It is in fact the Albanese government that has reversed the position of longstanding bipartisanship, has walked away from the commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, where difficult questions and issues, such as security guarantees between the two parties, agreed borders and rights of return, would be settled to achieve a lasting and secure two-state solution. It is indeed the government that has rejected longstanding bipartisanship, that has changed position on these matters, and we will not, in a Senate resolution, be railroaded into supporting the government's revised form of wording. That is why we proposed an amendment consistent with the longstanding bipartisan position and, given the government chose to reject that longstanding bipartisan position, we cannot support this clause of the resolution.
~~Sue Lines~~
~~The question is that paragraph (m) be agreed to.~~
~~~~
~~~~
The majority voted against a paragraph (m) of the amended amendment, which means it failed.
### Amendment text
> *(m) affirms its support for a two-state solution, a Palestinian State alongside Israel, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;*