Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Over the past 25 years, we have invaded Iraq twice, we have been in Afghanistan for over a decade, we have gone back to Iraq and now we are about to bomb Syria. There are a range of other countries involved in Syria, countries like the UK, France and Canada, who have allowed a full, frank and open debate around their engagement in that conflict. Why is it that our Prime Minister will not allow the same debate in the Australian parliament before committing our troops to another war?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the honourable senator is getting somewhat overexcited when he suggests that extending air strikes into Syria is starting or creating another war. This is the same evil that we are fighting, and have been fighting, which has a base in Syria. And, as I understand international law—and somebody might help me out, but I see the Attorney is gone. I will try it. Article 51 of the UN charter does allow for collective defence to be undertaken, and in those circumstances we believe that international law does allow us to extend our operations from those which we are doing today to Syria, to overcome Daesh.

Now, one thing I cannot understand is that, day after day after day, we get questions from the Australian Greens doing everything but supporting our service men and women who are fighting an evil that is untold—a group of individuals that behead their victims, that rape their victims and then kill them, because they are of an opposite faith or of a different faith from their own. These are people that do untold atrocities. Yet there is not a word of support for our service men and women, or the service men and women of other countries that are doing exactly the same. We on this side salute the service of our men and women who are putting themselves on the line to protect us and indeed— (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question. When the Prime Minister was asked what victory looked like, he stated that it would look like this: an end to genocide and an end to terrorism being exported to other nations. Can the minister explain how bombing Islamic State, which is not the primary source of the genocide going on right now in Syria, will lead to an end to the genocide in that nation?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable senator surely has the intelligence and understanding to know that, within the Middle East at the moment, there are a number of evil regimes undertaking activities that I hope everybody in this place would abhor. As we speak, we are seeking to deal with Daesh, the death cult. Are there other evils being perpetrated in the Middle East, in North Africa? Yes, there are. Can we deal with all of them at once? Well, I do not think so at the moment. But what we are seeking to do is deal with this particular one in a manner which is in lockstep with countries of like mind with whom we have fought in the past to overcome evil, be it in the First and Second World Wars or more lately in the Middle East. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a further supplementary question. The Prime Minister reportedly said today to Defence chiefs that, once a decision is made on Syria, he wanted at least one air strike by the end of the week. Can you confirm that the Prime Minister is seeking to interfere with the military's operational processes?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just yesterday, we had an Australian Green asserting that Senator Bernardi had said something, and Senator Bernardi came into the chamber later, after question time, absolutely debunking—and exposing the falsehood of—the Green's assertion. The Greens have a record, in this area, of misquoting people and then trying to get cheap headlines. I will not give credibility to the assertion that is implicit in the question from the Leader of the Australian Greens.

The Prime Minister has a great respect and regard for our military personnel, especially the chiefs, and he would not seek to intervene in relation to their activities and interoperational matters, which are ultimately designed to have the best strategic impact and not the sort of— (Time expired)