George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders. If I may say so, the intemperate speech which we have just heard from Senator Di Natale is perhaps the best example of the reason that decisions of this weight and gravity should be made by the executive government, informed by the military chiefs and the intelligence chiefs, informed by those who advise the National Security Committee of Cabinet, rather than a decision made in the heat of partisanship. That is the way the Westminster parliamentary system has always worked. Decisions to commit a nation to war—the gravest decision that any government can make—have always, according to the Westminster system, been made by the executive government.

That is not to say the issue cannot be debated by the parliament. I sat in the Senate at the time the Howard government decided to commit Australian troops to the second Gulf War. Regardless of what one's views about the commitment of Australian troops to that conflict may be, there was no shortage of parliamentary debate on the issue. In this chamber, we debated the issue for hours and hours upon end. So the question is not whether there should be an opportunity for parliament to consider the matter—parliament already has the opportunity to consider the matter; the question is who the decision-maker should be. It requires very little reflection to appreciate that, in making a decision to commit Australian forces to war and to put Australian lives in peril, considerations have to be borne in mind that are not capable of being aired in the public arena—in particular, intelligence and strategic considerations which, if aired in the public arena, could actually damage and imperil the military action in contemplation. I am speaking at a level of generality. I do not descend into the debate about the current strategic situation concerning North Korea. I say nothing about it.

What Senator Di Natale seeks to do is to challenge a principle which, were he to have his way, would in a militarily perilous situation potentially put Australian lives at risk. The way in which the Australian parliament, like all Westminster parliaments, deals with the matter is the right way: to allow the cabinet—in particular, the National Security Committee of Cabinet, advised with all of the intelligence, strategic information and military appraisal that our defence forces, intelligence agencies and others can place before it—to make that grave decision. No government would make a decision of such a kind lightly. The thought that this would be regarded as anything other than the gravest kind of decision that any government could ever make is fanciful.

Let there be debate in parliament, as there has been during every military conflict, whether it was the second Gulf War, the first Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War or, no doubt, the Second World War and the First World War. Let there be ample opportunity for parliament to debate the matter. But, please, do not fall for the folly of suggesting that a decision of this gravity could be made in a partisan environment in debate uninformed by the information that it needs to be informed by in a parliamentary chamber.