Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the coalition to speak in opposition to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 revised. Sadly, listening to Senator Shoebridge on behalf of the Australian Greens, the Greens like to talk about war parties in the Senate. But let's be very clear. History suggests—in fact, I would say it endorses—the fact that it is appeasement parties who are most harshly judged.

No party is pro war, but there is a reality—we are currently living that reality—that sometimes a nation must stand with its friends, with its allies, with the oppressed against the oppressor. The Greens like to say that they have the moral high ground when it comes to standing with the oppressed against the oppressor. I have to say shame on the Australian Greens. Shame on the Australian Greens for not standing with people of Iran, the people who would desperately like to have the same freedoms that the Greens here in Australia exercise on a daily basis. You are not standing with the oppressed. Quite frankly, your moral hypocrisy is sickening.

This bill would fundamentally change longstanding aspects of our government. This is not the sort of change which should come after an hour's debate on a private senator's bill. Sadly for the Australian people, the Greens are habitually reckless when it comes to national security. They mistake slogans for strategy, moral vanity for serious statecraft and protest politics for what actually is responsible government. Time and time again they approach questions of national security with ideology and naivety rather than with the seriousness and realism with which these issues should be approached. This bill, quite frankly, is a textbook example.

In the most dangerous strategic environment Australia has faced since the Second World War, the Australian Greens want to make it harder for the Australian government to act quickly, decisively and, most importantly, in concert with our allies. This bill does not reflect the realities of the world as it is today in 2026. Quite frankly, it reflects a fantasy version of international affairs in which threats move slowly, crisis arrives with notice and governments have the luxury of waiting for a parliamentary process before acting. In 2026, looking forward, the reality is that that is not the world we now live in.

The coalition is clear. Decisions to deploy the Australian Defence Force overseas must remain a function of the executive. This bill is a relic of a different era when wars were formally declared, conflicts moved more slowly and the line between peace and war was often clearer. Today the reality that faces us—we may not like it, but as governments you must live with the reality. We face fast-moving, complex and often asymmetric threats. Government must be able to respond in hours, not at the pace the Greens would like, the pace of parliamentary debate.

This bill is clearly modelled on the United States War Powers Resolution of 1973, legislation whose operations and effectiveness have long been contested. The Greens may also have forgotten that this is Australia. We are not United States. We do not have a separately elected executive president; we have a cabinet drawn from and accountable to the parliament. This is our system of government. At elections, Australians choose a government to govern. They choose through their elected representatives a prime minister and cabinet to make what are sometimes incredibly hard and incredibly difficult decisions that are required in moments of crisis. That democratic choice should be respected because it is respecting—even if we do not like it—the decision of the Australian people. We elect leaders to lead.

This bill would require parliamentary approval before the ADF could be deployed overseas. In practical terms, that means giving the Senate a veto over decisions that have historically and constitutionally rested with the executive. That is not consistent with our great Westminster system nor is it practical in the modern age. We are in 2026 looking forward, not 1973 looking backwards. The Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the House of Representatives and secure supply through the parliament, so any decision of government already carries democratic legitimacy through the House.

What this bill that the Greens want to legislate does is not add accountability. What it does add, in a day and an era where sometimes speed is essential, is delay, uncertainty and, worse than that, operational risk. In matters of national security, delay and uncertainty carry real consequences. The bill itself exposes the problem. Much of it is devoted to trying to manage the practical chaos that its own model ironically would actually create. Did the Greens give thought to what happens if the parliament's actually not sitting at the time of a crisis? What happens if urgent action is required before the parliament can be recalled? What happens to troops deployed pending approval? What happens if approval is refused after a deployment has already begun? How are our Defence Force personnel supposed to operate under the cloud of uncertainty? How are our allies supposed to rely on Australia's support if it comes with an asterisk and a parliamentary contingency? Allies need certainty, the ADF needs clarity, and this bill sadly—but it is the reality of the Australia Greens' version of how to not protect your country and how to not stand with your allies—provides neither.

Parliament already has avenues to scrutinise debate and express its views on deployments and conflicts. This Senate has debated the situation in the Middle East multiple times in recent weeks alone. Governments can also be held to account when they lose parliamentary support. The classic historical example is the Norway debate in the United Kingdom, which led to the resignation of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain over the conduct in the war in Europe. Our current system already provides scrutiny, debate and accountability, but it also—and this is the important part, contrary to what the Greens believe—preserves the government's capacity to make timely decisions in the national interest. Ultimately, governments are accountable to the Australian people for their decisions at our elections.

As I said, the Greens like to sneer—you heard it again; you hear it every single day in this place—about the so-called war parties. The Greens don't seem to understand that government is tough. You've actually got to make really tough decisions. Nobody is pro war. Nobody is, but sometimes you actually have to make a decision that is in the best interests of your country and your national security and, quite frankly, that backs in your allies. History is not kind to those who confuse moral posturing with strategic judgement or theatrical dissent, as we have just seen and we see every day in this place, with responsible leadership.

No serious party is pro war. But serious parties of government understand that there are times when a nation must act. There are times when a nation must stand with its allies. A nation must defend its interests and stand, as I said, with the oppressed against the oppressor. Let's not forget that this ayatollah who is now dead slaughtered thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent Iranians over decades. The Greens clearly have not spoken to innocent Iranians who fled that murderous regime and have sought a better life in the great country of Australia. How the Australian Greens can actually in any way endorse the Iranian government and the IRGC having in any way, shape or form nuclear capability, quite frankly, defies any form of logic, and yet they are happy in this case to not stand with the oppressed but to back in the oppressor. Shame on you.

This bill would fundamentally alter a longstanding feature of responsible government in Australia. That is not the kind of change, quite frankly, that should be driven by a private senators bill and waved through. This is what the Australian Greens would like, and they'll do a press conference after this saying 'the two great parties of war' after a few hours of debate. And as I said, the opposition will oppose this bill because we are one of the two parties of government—the coalition and the Australian Labor Party—in the great country of Australia. We do understand that there will be times—and we did it during COVID—where, as a nation, we must act. Where, as a nation, we must stand with our allies. Where, as a nation, we must defend our interests, we must defend those great Western values that the Greens love to live on a daily basis, but God forbid anybody else, and in particular Iranians, ever seeks to actually have as a daily right like we do.

As I said, the Greens, sadly, are habitually reckless on national security, as is reflected in this bill. They have never understood that protecting peace, and peace is something that we all want, sometimes requires more than just rhetoric, more than just slogans in the Australian parliament. It requires strength, it requires resolve, but it also requires a willingness to act. This bill—I would say sadly, but I've been in this place a long time and the Greens rhetoric only gets worse on a year-by-year basis—is yet another example of the Greens putting ideology that they love to live by on a daily basis ahead of Australia's security interests.