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

It is difficult when they are so infantile, but I will do my best. Proponents of this argument, which we heard during the Senate inquiry in 2009, missed the point that it is not a military decision to go to war; it is a political decision. The bill calls for the government of the day to make the political case as to why diplomatic efforts and multilateral institutions have failed. It calls on them to make the case to the Australian people as to why force is the only option.

I would argue that case had not been made to the Australian people in the instance of the invasion of Afghanistan, which former Prime Minister Howard signed Australia up to, sight unseen. He was in Washington on 9/11, and I can imagine the impact that must have had—to be in the United States when an atrocity like that is perpetrated not far from where you are staying. He committed to George Bush at that time: 'Whatever you need, we're there.' It was a blank cheque to invade Afghanistan and then to invade a country that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the extraordinary crime committed in New York and Washington on 11 September. He wrote a blank cheque, and that is what we are trying to stop here. We should make the political case, and then let the military leadership deal with the strategies and tactics once a democratic decision has been made to deploy.

Again, I would put to opponents of this bill: if it is such a disaster to have these debates in the public domain, how are all these other countries managing? How are they getting away with it? If you cannot persuade a majority of your own parliament that a deployment is in order and in the national interest, maybe there is something wrong with your case. I have heard this argument made a number of times. Labor senators have made it and government senators have made it. Why on earth would you want to expose a decision as serious as the decision to deploy into harm's way to the crossbench? Those arguments miss the point that for the crossbench votes to even be called into play, it must mean the opposition party is offside. If you cannot persuade a majority of your own parliament that a deployment is in the national interest, maybe there is something deeply wrong with your case. Maybe you should be forced to put it into the public domain so that the argument can be had.

I recognise that there are technical issues in this bill which have been debated over many years and are worthy of debate. And we are reintroducing this bill for debate this morning with the door wide open. Senator Carr, I do not know if you are planning on speaking. If you have suggestions, we are all ears. Senator O'Sullivan, if your side of politics has suggestions, proposals or amendments, we are all ears. We are interested in progressing the principle of this issue as the first step in renegotiating the defence relationship with a president who I submit to this chamber is an extremely dangerous individual—dangerous to the interests of his own electorate and dangerous to Australia.

I look forward to seeing how this debate unfolds. This is really only stage 1 for the Australian Greens. As I said, we are willing to discuss how this issue can be progressed. If not using the exact wording of this bill, how do we democratise the decision to place Australian service personnel into harm's way? I think it is one of the gravest and most serious considerations that could be put to a member of parliament. I do not think it is tenable for those individuals in this building to say that they are not competent, that they do not want that responsibility. I think that responsibility properly belongs in here so that these arguments can be heard in the light of day rather than made behind closed doors as we saw in the disastrous decision to invade Iraq, which has made the world a deeply unstable place.

We believe that, in the cause of the rule of law, Australia should take its place among those other democracies with whom we either are in formal alliances or at least consider kindred democracies so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in 2003.