Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. As this week is the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of almost 5,000 coalition troops and over 100,000 civilians, and billions of dollars misspent on reconstruction projects, will the government follow the lead of like-minded democracies such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands by establishing an independent inquiry into Australia's involvement in this illegal war, in particular the honesty and accountability around the stated reasons for and the decision to participate in the war?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am aware from media reports today that the Greens have renewed their call for an inquiry into the Iraq war. The issue was raised in August last year. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence made clear at the time, the government is not considering an inquiry into the Iraq war. The issues surrounding the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction have already been the subject of both extensive government and parliamentary reviews. Any further questions are obviously a matter for the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Howard, and his senior ministers.

I want to reiterate the comments made in August last year by Minister Smith:

The circumstances of the Iraq war have been gone through by any number of parliamentary inquiries, particularly in the Senate. You always learn lessons from a former or a previous conflict.

Mr Smith went on to say:

My political party, the Labor Party, opposed going to Iraq and when we came to office we withdrew our combat troops. So our longstanding view of Iraq is well known.

Mr President, I am not sure there is a lot more I can add to the senator's questions, but if there is any other information I am able to provide, I will see if it is available.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, given the statements by the then opposition leader, Simon Crean, that the Howard government had lied to the Australian people about the basis for its decision to go to war, and the ALP's condemnation of the decision, is it now the government's position that any decision to put Australian troops in harm's way should be made by the elected representatives of the parliament, not by an executive which relies on and releases only selective information?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decision to go to war is rightly a decision for the government of the day. Decisions by the government of the day are always tested, or are able to be tested, on the floor of the House of Representatives, which, of course, determines who forms a government. Parliaments are rightly able to consider and debate important matters of state, as the parliament did during the debate on Afghanistan. But it is for elected governments to exercise responsibility and be held to account for the decisions they make, including going to war.

These decisions do not require an act of the parliament. They are an exercise of executive power under section 61 of the Australian Constitution. The government regards this long-standing constitutional practice as appropriate, and does not support any proposal to alter these arrangements. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the government agree with prominent Australians such as former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, former secretary of defence, Paul Barratt, and former Chief of the Defence Force, General Gration, that unless Australia recognise—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a minute, Senator Milne, you are entitled to be heard in silence.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I am interested that the coalition is disowning Malcolm Fraser, but anyway—

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On both sides.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we do not recognise that the war was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster we will not learn the lessons from this episode, and we are at grave risk of engaging in equally ill-founded wars in the future. Does the government agree?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my first answer, I indicated the comments by my colleague, Mr Smith, where he said:

You always learn lessons from a former or a previous conflict.

The issue of the assessment of the Australian intelligence community of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has been considered by two inquiries. The former parliamentary joint committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD considered the matter, as did the so-called Flood inquiry into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Flood inquiry found that there was an intelligence failure by Australia's agencies on Iraq, and that intelligence was thin, ambiguous and incomplete.

On the critical issue of independence, the Flood inquiry found no evidence to suggest policy or political influence on assessments on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Noting the inquiries that have already been conducted into this matter, as I said, there has been much to be learned from those. (Time expired)

Senator Cormann interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, someone sitting next to you is waiting to get to their feet to ask a question.