Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Did you take that one personally, Senator O'Sullivan? You knew I was referring to you, even though I did not name you—that's interesting isn't it?

We do not believe that we should blindly uphold tradition if the tradition has outlasted its welcome. It is a tradition that is descended from the right of the British monarch to deploy troops into the field whenever he or she felt like it. We think that maybe modern Australia might have outlasted that tradition, and when we look to Westminster we will see that they have in fact outlasted that tradition.

There is not a formal war power by statute in the UK, but prime ministers from both sides of politics have undertaken that before deployment occurs they will consult with parliament, and that was what prevented them deploying into Syria couple of years ago. Democratic institutions evolve. That is part of what we do in here. It is part of what we are sent here to do. Not all of these longstanding conventions have merit.

Another argument Senator O'Sullivan may or may not choose to make is to imply that a parliamentary debate necessarily involves disclosure of classified military strategic intelligence information and that it would be reckless in the extreme to expose that information into the public domain before deployment—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Oh, for heaven's sake! Is there a standing order just relating to idiocy?