Julian Burnside denies Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is anti-Semitic

Julian Burnside has denied that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is anti-Semitic.

Julian Burnside outside a polling station. Picture: Ian Currie

Former Greens candidate Julian Burnside has denied that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is anti-Semitic, as he accused Victorian MP Tim Smith of using parliamentary privilege to spread “lies” about him in state parliament and revealed he recently had fellow Josh Frydenberg challenger Oliver Yates over to his house for a glass of wine.

Coalition frontbencher Mr Smith used an adjournment speech last week to accuse Mr Yates of being a “nasty liar” and link him and Mr Burnside to an “anti-Semitic” citizenship challenge to the Treasurer’s ability to sit in federal parliament.

Mr Smith received across-the-aisle support from state Planning Minister Richard Wynne, who said he had raised an important matter “in relation to the question of anti-Semitic motivations by some people seeking to undermine the federal Treasurer.”.

Mr Burnside hit back on Twitter over the weekend, saying Mr Smith had “misused his parliamentary privilege by suggesting that I am involved in a s. 44 challenge against Josh Frydenberg, and that I am anti-Semitic.”

“Both are lies,” the human rights lawyer tweeted. “He doesn’t dare say either thing without the protection of parliamentary privilege.”

Climate activist Michael Staindl last month launched a challenge under section 44 of the Constitution aimed at establishing whether Mr Frydenberg inherited Hungarian citizenship through his mother, Erica, who fled the Holocaust.

Mr Yates, who concedes he knows Mr Staindl “through his community work” has attempted to publicly distance himself from the push.

However, The Australian revealed earlier this month that Mr Yates had tried to enlist supporters within his Kooyong Independents Group to investigate electoral issues such as parliamentary ineligibility.

Lawyer Trevor Poulton, who was accused of anti-Semitism over his 2012 book “The Holocaust Denier”, previously told The Australian he was working with Mr Yates’s “Kooyong Independents” to test the Treasurer’s citizenship status.

Mr Staindl’s High Court challenge was lodged by former Greens candidate Vanessa Bleyer of Bleyer Lawyers.

“I know (Ms Bleyer) professionally, but I have not met her and I have never discussed section 44 with her,” said Mr Burnside — who ran for the Greens in Mr Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong in July.

Mr Burnside told The Australian last month he had no plans to lodge a section 44 petition against Mr Frydenberg himself but would “be applauding it if it happened”.

He said had never spoken to Mr Poulton or Mr Staindl and had last spoken to Mr Yates “a couple of weeks ago”.

“He came over for a glass of wine, but as far as I recall we didn’t talk about section 44,” Mr Burnside said.

“We certainly didn’t talk about it in advance of it happening, and as far as I’m aware he’s got nothing to do with it.”

Asked how he could deny being anti-Semitic while supporting the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement, Mr Burnside said: “I’m not aware of it being anti-Semitic.”

“The behaviour of the Israeli government is one thing. Anti-Semitism is completely different,” he said.

Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar said the BDS movement was “unquestionably anti-Semitic”.

“It represents opposition to Israel’s very existence,” Mr Sukkar said.

“So it doesn’t surprise me that the same people who support a section 44 challenge to Josh Frydenberg — Australia’s most senior Jewish politician — are people who also support the anti-Semitism of the BDS movement.”

Mr Smith expressed scepticism about Mr Burnside’s claim that he and Mr Yates did not discuss the section 44 challenge.

“Any suggestion that those two Chardonnay swillers didn’t discuss the section 44 attack on Josh Frydenberg is preposterous,” he said.

Mr Yates did not respond to a request for comment.