Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link]. The Greens bill before us today is potentially well-meaning, but it is seriously ill considered and provides another example of and insight into how Green ideology is never tested against the practicalities of real life. The name of the bill is the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020. It sounds good and, at first sight, it might arouse some interest amongst colleagues. But they should not be misled. Laudable as the title may be, its practical consequences are very real, and, as a result, it needs to be defeated. The amendment bill being proposed by the Greens could rightly be renamed the 'Prejudicing Our Troops and Giving our Enemies a Head Start (Another Bad Idea by the Greens) Bill'.

Defending our nation and its interests is the most important task of any government. If you can't protect your borders, your integrity as a nation state and all the blessings that go with that are compromised. Thankfully, we have men and women willing to defend us. They are highly trained and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our protection. They are our flesh and blood. They are our fellow Australians. We celebrate them and their forebears each Anzac Day. Their lives are precious. When they respond to the call of active service, they can be guaranteed that their Commander-in-Chief, the Governor-General, will not be sending them without having thoroughly weighed up all the alternatives. The Governor-General relies on the advice of the Executive Council, which is formed from the democratically elected government of the day. Ultimately, the government is answerable to the parliament and the people. Our founding fathers gave the power to the executive in section 61 of our Constitution, a constitution ratified by the people of Australia, our forebears. They knew what they were doing.

We all aspire to avoid conflict and warfare. But, human nature being as it is, we'll continue to be engaged in warfare. That is a matter of great regret but also a reflection of the unfortunate reality. We need to be prepared and nimble, and this may require covert activity and it may require pre-emptive activity. If one were to be an enemy of Australia, one would be salivating at the prospect of the Greens' bill being passed and they would be dejected at its failure. Imagine a two-day or even two-minute parliamentary debate on whether to attack somewhere. Pre-warned or forewarned is forearmed. How could anyone think that that is a smart, strategic idea?

We live in a complex and uncertain strategic environment. Intelligence may advise of enemy troop movements which could be landed within the hour. Things are a lot more nimble and quicker these days than when our forefathers quite rightly gave the executive the right to commit our troops to war. Today, in the 21st century, it is all the more important that the executive and the National Security Committee have the flexibility that is needed. Should we lamely wait for the enemy to arrive or pre-emptively strike them before they reach our airspace and our land mass? These are the real questions that need to be dealt with and asked.

I, for one, hate the prospect of war. I dislike it immensely. It is something that we should all seek to avoid. But, unfortunately, we do know that from time to time war is needed, and peace is not simply the absence of war. We recognise that there is, from time to time, the need to defend our country, our values and indeed the values and interests of like-minded nations who have come to our defence in the past—and, similarly, we have a right and duty to come to their aid in the future. Every now and then in these debates people like to have a whack at the United States, gratuitously so, but let's not forget the Battle of the Coral Sea, where US personnel—men mainly—died to protect Australia from direct invasion. These troops were deployed overseas by another country to protect us. Similarly, from time to time, our men and women are being sent overseas to protect the interests of other countries. It is the right and proper thing to do. It is what friends do for each other.

Under this bill, a report, along with a proclamation, would need to be tabled in the parliament, which would compromise the operational security of our Australian defence forces. I, for one, cannot and will not be party to such a change. Under the provisions of this ill-conceived bill, the enemy would be provided with a notice of the expected geographical extent of the deployment, the expected duration of the deployment and the number of members of the ADF proposed to be deployed. My goodness, what more do we want to feed the enemy! What more do we want to tell them about our manoeuvres, their geographic location or how many soldiers we're going to send in? This is all vital tactical information which should never be disclosed to our enemy. Armed with such information, those forces opposed to our interests could and would reconfigure and take tactical advantage in preparation. And the winner is? Not Australian troops, not Australia and not Australia's interests—let alone our democracy. The only winner will be the enemy. Surely it is our duty to avoid such risks being placed on our personnel? They deserve better, as do their families.

The geographic restrictions in the Greens bill do not reflect the modern strategic environment. It makes one conclude that the drafters of this bill have drawn deeply on their experiences of playing board games like Risk, without having a genuine appreciation and understanding that, today, the domains of space and cyberspace are also part of the equation. This bill also gives no consideration to a situation where we might be serving with like-minded freedom-loving countries. Surely they need to know that they can rely on us, not that the plug might be pulled every couple of months by a moving majority in the Senate?

Let's be exceptionally clear: under our parliamentary democracy, if the executive does something which the parliament disapproves of, a motion of no confidence in the government can be passed in the House of Representatives, and then there are flow-on consequences of that. To suggest that the National Security Committee or the executive has unfettered powers in this space is, of course, wrong. It's false. It serves a particular narrative but it does not represent the truth. The parliament still is the ultimate arbiter. If troops are sent in in circumstances where the parliament is in strong or strenuous disagreement with that action then the parliament can take the necessary activity. But to say that parliamentary approval has to be given in advance, with those matters that I outlined before, would be to give the enemy a great strategic advantage, to the detriment of our operations and, most importantly, to the detriment of the wellbeing of our Australian Defence Force personnel, to whom we owe the greatest responsibility in seeking to preserve life and limb.

Further, the bill suggests that there should be two-monthly reports to the parliament as to the extent of the operation. Can you just imagine saying in the parliament, 'We expect this to only go for another one month, or an extra three months,' or, 'We hope to withdraw within the next six weeks or eight weeks, depending on particular strategic circumstances'? What does that tell the enemy about how to position themselves?

To broadcast these matters would do a great disservice to Australia's interests and of course to our personnel.

As to subsection 10 of the bill, in paragraph 17 of the explanatory memorandum we are told that this subsection provides that, when members of the Defence Force are deployed overseas in the circumstances, the minister must report in writing to each house of the parliament every two months on the status, the legality and the scope—the scope!—and anticipated duration of the deployment. Well, my goodness! If I were the enemy, I would be demanding this. I would be loving it. I would ensure that, as soon as this statement were tabled or given in the Australian parliament, I would be there, feeding it in to those who were organising the enemy side.

It is, I suspect, well-intentioned, but it really is majorly flawed to have this bill come before our parliament. I trust that the Senate will see the unwisdom—if that is a word—of this bill. It sounds good on the surface: 'Yes, let's have parliamentary democracy involved; let's have a full debate before sending people.' But during that debate the enemy can marshal. We could deny ourselves a pre-emptive strike. With the reports every two months, the enemy would get a very strong insight as to what we were thinking and what our strategy was. And, of course, it stands to reason that, in circumstances of war—as horrific as they are and as much as we try to avoid them—there will be the need for very quick strategic advances, or, indeed, withdrawals. There may be very tough decisions to be made. And we'd have that broadcast, for the benefit of so-called democracy, when we know that the real benefit will not be for democracy but for the enemy.

I would encourage the Australian Greens to reconsider this bill. We have a wonderful parliamentary democracy. It has worked exceptionally well for us since the Commonwealth of Australia was brought into being by a vote of the Australian people, by which vote section 61 of our Constitution empowered the executive to undertake military action when and as required by the new nation-state, Australia, now well and truly into its second century of existence. I would encourage all colleagues, in considering this bill, to give due consideration to the wellbeing of our nation's interests and to our personnel's interests. This bill does not deserve the support of the Senate, and I am pleased to note that the Labor Party, the other party of government, also opposes this bill.