Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I have recently handed over the defence and veterans portfolio to Senator Ludlam, who is tied up, so I will speak on his behalf. Senator Brandis, before you flee the chamber, I would like this put on record. Perhaps you could explain to the Senate at some stage why Martin Place was a terrorist attack. I would be very interested, especially with your legal background. My understanding was that that is very much disputed. In fact, the circumstances surrounding that situation were extremely complex, including through the coronial inquest in Sydney. I would be very interested as to why you have got up here and used that as one of your motivations, because we would like to get more detail on that particular issue.

The Labor and Liberal parties have yet again sidelined the parliament and the Australian people by quietly agreeing to changes to war crimes legislation, shortcutting debate and expert analysis. The Greens' foreign affairs and defence spokesman, Senator Ludlam, said today:

These changes seriously alter the governance of ADF personnel in combat. They change the definition of a war crime. It's a highly charged, complex topic in which civilians in war zones on the other side of the world have no voice.

We'd like to hear from the ADF about why they feel these changes were needed. What actions are they trying to take that are being prevented by existing war crimes legislation?

Parliament should have a far greater role in debating the use of military force, and the implications of those deployments.

The Greens have always argued for parliamentary war-powers. Senator Ludlam went on:

These are some of the most important decisions a nation can make—

And that is what parliamentarians should be doing as one of their key roles in this place. Senator Ludlam said:

Australian forces operate under much more stringent rules of engagement than many of our allies including the US. Anything that creates a risk of that changing needs to be carefully scrutinised.

It is worth pointing out, on this issue, that Australia is one of the last Western democracies where we can send citizens into conflict zones without recourse to parliament. So it is good that we will get a chance to debate this when Senator Brandis brings this to us next week.

Before I finish up—and we will have more to say on this next week—I want to say that you are coming in here and using examples of terrorism occurring on Australian soil as justification for changes to laws, when those examples are disputed. Certainly with Martin Place, nobody has any doubt at all that the individual in question, Man Haron Monis, was mentally ill. He was a violent criminal with a history of criminality. He reportedly set fire to his wife. He was a very complex character. To label his act of violence, which was a huge tragedy for our nation, as being politically motivated—that has not been established. I have raised it in this house before. The problem with calling people terrorists is that there is no internationally accepted political definition of that word. If it implies political motivation, then the subject is, by nature, highly subjective. Let me make it very clear for the record: Monis was a violent criminal and what he did was tragic and unspeakable, but to come in here and use that as an example of an act of terrorism to give our military special powers, fighting on the other side of the world, I think undermines the case already put by Senator Brandis. So I would like him to come in here next week and clarify why he believed that was an act of terrorism.

Question agreed to.