Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise on behalf of the coalition to address the call of the member for Melbourne, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, that this House calls on the government to set a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan. 'Troops home by Christmas' is a common call that we have heard before.

I agree with the member for Melbourne in his first sentences of his address to this House. War is hell. It is a battle of wills. It is the last resort upon the breakdown of diplomatic efforts to achieve national goals in the face of tyranny. It leaves destroyed nations, destroyed souls, broken bodies and broken families. I can think of few graver calls that a Prime Minister and an executive actually make than to send our young men and women to war. Our combat operations in Afghanistan since 2001—noting the hiatus there from 2003 to 2005—have left 38 of our finest killed in battle and over 250 wounded. The impact upon the mental condition and minds of our young soldiers is greater still.

But there is a reason why the prerogative sits with the executive to commit our men and women to war. There is a reason why the government, elected by the people to represent them and govern them in their stead, commits our nation to war. There is a reason why an elected body, which we call the government and which sits to the right of the Speaker on the Treasury benches, commits our nation to war. Only the government has full access to the full intelligence suites, to the full information suites and to the information from our allies and partners. Only they are across the full access of the national intent and the national interest. Only they are across the full capability and calibre of our national power, be it in terms of hard power, in our combat sense, or soft power, in our diplomatic sense. Only the elected government is fully across the relationships at a bilateral and multilateral level and understands the full ramifications and the full costs and is prepared to wear them and be accountable for committing our forces to war. Only the executive bears that heavy load.

It is incumbent upon the parliament, as one of the three separations of powers, to keep the government accountable, to keep the executive accountable, in the prosecution of combat operations. But someone must be accountable and it is not an amorphous parliament; it is a government. It is an elected body of men and women. It is a body that goes to the people and stands trial by the people in a capacity called an election. Only the government wears that policy.

I am surprised, though, that the Greens have brought this up for debate in the House. It is instructive to look at the policy of the Greens when it comes to defence, defence spending and combat operations in general. According to the Greens, climate change is the greatest threat to world peace and security. The last time I looked I had not seen climate change slay too many people! I have not seen climate change run them over with armoured personnel carriers and tanks! I have not seen climate change call in artillery strikes in suburbs in Syria! I have not seen climate change develop nuclear arsenals in defiance of the world, as Iran is doing! Right now, in the Strait of Hormuz, the US Navy has three Nimitz-class carrier battle groups. Three. Literally a third of the US's surface fleet is now within an area 21 nautical miles by 21 nautical miles, in concert with 23 other nations, on a 12-day exercise at the same time as the sabre rattling over Iran's nuclear threat is reaching a level we have not seen. Three nuclear powered Nimitz-class carrier battle groups: one of the greatest concentrations of military armadas we have seen for quite a while. But, hey, climate change is the greatest threat to world peace and security.

Perhaps someone should tell that to the Africans who are being slaughtered by dictatorial regimes every single day. Someone should tell that to Mugabe. 'Hey, you are not a threat to Zimbabwe. You have not reduced your people's standard of living to the lowest level of any country on earth. You have not reduced to 37 the average age that someone lives.' Climate change is the greatest threat to world peace and security.

These are the Greens who believe in no US bases, that Australia should not allow any nuclear ships into our harbours and we should dispense with bilateral defence arrangements and rest solely on multilateral arrangements, especially the United Nations! I sit looking across at my good friend and colleague the member for Eden-Monaro. He and I are the only ones to have served overseas on military operations, and we wear ribbons accordingly. We have both served with the United Nations overseas and we have both found them wanting at certain stages of those deployments.

But the Greens believe the United Nations should have a permanent UN peacekeeping budget. The Greens believe Australia should be funding this permanent US peacekeeping budget so that Australia would never have to deploy troops. The UN could solve all the world's problems. The Greens believe that ANZUS, the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, one that has been in place for over 60 years, should be dispensed with. The Greens believe that the 41-year-old treaty, the Five Power Defence Arrangements, between Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia should be dispensed with—one of the overarching bilateral security treaties, which exists to provide security assistance to Singapore and Malaysia. The Greens believe that should be dispensed with. The Greens, frankly, believe that we should train ourselves in passive resistance, and that will ensure that we never face any egregious behaviour, and only in an event of national invasion should we concern ourselves with dealing with any existential threat.

I do not know what planet the Greens are on when they call for these motions in the parliament. Their policy settings make it very clear that they do not take national security seriously; they do not take defence of the realm seriously; and they do not take defence of Australia's interests, its lives and liberties overseas, seriously. I wonder how the Greens would deal with a terrorist incident such as a hostage incident overseas. I wonder how the Greens would deal with the occupation of an offshore oil and gas hub. How would the Greens deal with five AusAID workers taken captive by overseas Islamic forces? What would the Greens do? I look across at the member for Eden-Monaro and I know pretty well that my government and his would be looking at every option on the table, including bilateral special forces operations in terms of recovery. The Greens would be sitting around singing Kumbaya hoping that the Islamic forces would somehow wake up to themselves, apologise and send our people home. Perhaps the Greens should simply provide 30 pieces of silver to those forces who seek to do us harm and call it quits and leave the field of battle.

The motion is seriously not worth considering because it is wider than simply setting a date for combat troops to come home. What the Greens are saying is that there is no point committing to the use of force if it is necessary in the national interest. The Greens agenda is blown wide open by looking at their Defence policy. It is freely available on the web. I would encourage all Australians to go to the Greens website—it is greens.org.au—and have a look at it. Satisfy yourself as to whether this party seriously understands the true ramifications of national security and what it means to defend a sovereign nation.

This is a party that actually believes we should have an international ban on making guns. That is great in theory. I look forward to that great biblical time when we beat our swords into ploughshares but, until such time as those who would do us harm and who seek nuclear weapons to destroy those who love freedom lay down their arms, may I suggest that we as a nation will keep a very firm grip upon ours. It is fanciful to think we should be looking at international bans on weapons knowing full well that the forces that would do us harm have no intention of laying down theirs at all. The Greens simply need to wake up and face the world of reality. Yes, at times it is not pleasant. Yes, at times the world we live in is dark and dangerous. Yes, at times government makes difficult decisions. But I would rather an executive awake to the implications of their actions than a Greens government asleep at their fanciful wheel.

See this speech in context