Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This is one of the most serious matters that a government, a parliament and a population can be confronted with. Putting our forces in harm's way and getting involved in a war in another country has repercussions for the people who are involved, for the population and for the world more generally. Like, I think, everyone in this place and probably everyone around the country, when you witness the horrific images of beheadings and hear the plight of people trapped in remote locations in need of assistance and, just as we have had in the last little while confirmation that a second journalist has now lost their life in the most barbarous of circumstances, you wonder what to do. People look at this horror and this terror and wonder what should be to. That is precisely why we should be in this place having a full debate about how Australia responds, not as the screen here in the chamber suggested 'Statements by indulgence', as if the only basis that a member of parliament can contribute to this is with some indulgence and leeway but as of right. And we should be having a discussion that is not a non-binding discussion after the decision has been made, but a serious discussion in this parliament about what Australia's response should be. Having a debate in this parliament invites the Australian people and invites the government to hear the pros and cons and it forces the government, as we are not hearing now, to make its case for military intervention.

The government would have to show that any involvement in war in another country, on the other side of the world, would make things safer for Australia and safer for the rest of the world. That is not something that the government has shown so far. The government would have to demonstrate that getting involved by running guns for one side of the conflict—as this government is doing—and potentially even more, would actually make the region more stable, because when you look at the history of the last 11 years in Iraq you see that the evidence suggests the opposite. The evidence that suggest that military involvement from the likes of Australia has actually helped to destabilise the region. We were told back in 2003 that we were going to bring democracy to that part of the world through military invasion. We are told that military force would prevent these kinds of horrors from occurring. Plainly, that has not been the case. Even more recently, when Western forces assisted some of the groups who were protesting and fighting President Assad in Syria, we now know that some of the assistance that we provided, and the guns that we provided, to those groups are now being used by groups that are fighting alongside ISIL—so many reports claim. So we have to ask: are we about to repeat the mistakes of the past?

In a debate, the government would also have to explain what constitutes a successful mission. I have heard many, many answers to that. At what point will it be said that we have achieved the mission and the reason that we went there? Is it to stay there until these forces are defeated, so, potentially, several years? Is it until the people are safe? Is it simply to drop some guns and then come back? We do not know. That is a concern, because last week we were providing humanitarian assistance; this week we are running guns to one side of the conflict. Who knows what we are going to be doing next week?

The government would also have to come here and explain what the legal basis is for this intervention in another country. We had the astounding spectacle of the Prime Minister making a statement to parliament and then, within a few hours, the Iraqi ambassador coming out and saying, 'Actually, we don't support the Australian government supplying arms direct to the Peshmerga. It should come through the Iraqi government.' He then recanted a short while later. All of those things could be tested here. We could test the very serious issue of blowback, which many commentators have reported on. It is this: if Australia gets involved militarily on one side of a conflict somewhere else, will Australia then be seen as an enemy that is to be threatened in the same way that threats are currently happening? In other words, what would be the consequences for Australia's safety from getting involved? That needs to be brought out and discussed. If there is one lesson we can learn from recent history it is that military intervention is not a cure-all. The Greens supported intervention in East Timor. We supported the Australian involvement then because the case had been made and there was a very clear humanitarian objective an our doorstep. The case had been argued, and we supported it. So it is not a case of saying, 'Never, ever, should one get involved in a conflict.' It is a case of saying, 'When is the right time to do it?' and, 'Do it with your eyes open.'

There is an additional reason that this government should be far more transparent. We know that this government loves to turn human problems into military ones. We have seen that with its treatment of refugees. We know that this government loves to hide behind a uniform. So if the government wants to avoid the charge that some have made, that this is being done for domestic reasons rather than international reasons, then bring a debate to parliament and make the decision in the full glare of the spotlight of public opinion. Otherwise, Prime Minister, if you slip the switch to khaki all of a sudden, people are entitled to question your motivations if you are not being clear with the Australian people about how long we will be there, our purpose and the time we will exit.

It is distressing that, in the blink of an eye, we have gone to being involved in a war in another country. These questions of how to deal with the radicalisation of people, who may be Australian citizens or have a connection with Australia, is a very complicated one that we need to grapple with. We need to ask: does it stem from exclusion that people feel when they are here in this country? Does it stem from attitudes that people in Australia have to Australia's foreign policy—that is, do they see Australia getting involved in conflicts and backing one side over another and does that then force them to have less of an affinity with Australia? Does the move to switch to terror laws, which, in essence, are really about—despite what the Prime Minister says—picking a group of people and using them in public debate as a punching bag to make political points, have an effect?

I note that the leaders in the community in Victoria and in my electorate of Melbourne are grappling with these issues and the best way to deal with that is to have a genuine conversation. I do not have all the answers. I want to hear from people about how we stop this kind of radicalisation, stop people from being attracted to terror and stop people thinking that it is a good idea to go over and join ISIL. But if all we do is chest-beating jingoism we will miss out on the opportunity of having that nuanced and complicated discussion and cutting Australia's link to this kind of abhorrent radicalisation.

I am worried that this government has opened a door and that we are marching down a path to further and further involvement in a war. There is no clear end in sight.

See this speech in context