AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE: DEPLOYMENT

Mr McCLELLAND  (Barton) (5.03 p.m.) —I rise in support of the opposition's amendment to the government's motion. The Minister for Employment Services concluded his discussion by talking about character. One of the characteristics of character is living by your own standards. On 17 February, the Attorney-General, who is in the House, in respect of an accusation that the opposition had released the contents of a briefing from, in that case, ASIO—which, of course, was disputed most vigorously, but to use the outrage of the Attorney-General back at the government—said:

When you seek to canvass and traverse the sorts of inquiries that are being undertaken in relation to national security issues, you are taking a highly irresponsible and dangerous course. I do not think it gives the opposition any credit whatsoever for those who are fully briefed to pass information on to those that are not.

Here we have to consider who has not been briefed about the activities of our security services and security agencies. Of course, the terrorists confront our troops in the most dangerous part of the world. What the government has done in canvassing the subject matter of these briefs is, at the very least, to reveal to those people much more than they need to know about the operations of our intelligence agencies in that most dangerous area of the world.

The previous speaker spoke of the danger to our troops and the danger to non-government agencies. I suggest that what the government has done for its own partisan political advantage is the height of irresponsibility, and we sincerely hope that no adverse consequences come from it, because those terrorists in the most dangerous part of the world will not be aware of who is or who is not involved in our security agencies. What has been done for partisan political purposes is quite simply an outrage. It is condemned by the government's own standards of traversing the subject matter of these most confidential of briefings, according to the custom and practice that has developed over the last two decades, where the Leader of the Opposition has received a briefing.

Why have they done that? Why have the government knocked out question time today? They have done it because they do not want to talk about matters of significance to the Australian people. Basically, they know they are in strife, but they have been prepared to climb over the bodies of the public servants to protect their own political hides—to sacrifice the integrity of the Australian Public Service to protect their own political hides.

There is nothing more important to the defence of the safety of Australians, at a time of national challenge—which we certainly face here, as we are facing a war against terror—than the integrity and credibility of our security agencies. The Australian people must respect their independence and the fact that they are totally neutral from the political games that occur in this House. This is a political game initiated by the government, and it unquestionably has compromised senior public servants in crucial security roles—not only domestic security but literally in a context where Australian troops are in danger in a most dangerous part of the world. What has occurred here is nothing short of an outrage.

It has been said previously that, when we are talking about the Howard government, we are not talking about a conservative government in the traditions of conservative government; what we are talking about is a political gang. And the standover tactics that they have applied to those most senior and respected public servants are tactics that would be appreciated and applauded by any of the worst gangs on the docks of Sydney or Melbourne. It is nothing short of political thuggery.

Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, put yourself in the position of these most senior of public servants. They are prevailed upon by the government of the day, by their political masters, who have been prepared to show ruthlessness. Put yourself in their position, being prevailed upon by their political masters to join in a partisan political debate. What do they do? Do they ignore their political masters? Contemplate the situation that they face in making that decision. It is a situation that they should not have been placed in, and it is one that the government needs to be condemned for.

When speaking in the defence of the AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, I said that the attack on him was not simply an attack on Mick Keelty; it was, if you like, the government taking on one of the toughest of public servants to set an example to the rest of them of what would happen if they did not toe the government's party political lines. Here we have seen senior public servants in our intelligence agencies participating in briefing the Leader of the Opposition, providing confidential briefings that all are expected to respect but which are revealed by the government. We have a government here that literally spies on its spies for its own political purposes and has compromised our intelligence agencies. But you have to look at the insight of this government in terms of what it sees as the role of these briefings. Again, in the course of that parliamentary debate on 17 February, the Attorney-General, who is here in the chamber, said:

The government offers an indulgence to the opposition for briefing in relation to matters where national security is involved ...

In fact, it is not an indulgence at all; it is a right of the opposition leader under section 21 of the ASIO Act, in the case of ASIO, and under section 19 of the Intelligence Services Act. With respect to the background to that custom and practice, the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, said:

Since the two Hope Royal Commissions, Governments of both political persuasions have adopted a practice of keeping the Opposition Leader and, as appropriate, shadow Ministers, informed of significant intelligence and security matters, on the understanding that these briefings remain strictly confidential in order to protect national security.

When it comes to a choice between national security—the safety of Australian troops and non-government agencies in a most dangerous area of the world—and the government's partisan political interests, it is this government's partisan political interests that win each and every time.

It is accepted generally among those who are observers of political science that this government have well and truly been infected by the born to rule virus that so frequently infects the conservative side of politics in its dying stages—infected by the born to rule mentality. All I can say is that they simply do not have the style of those previous conservative administrations. There is no way that a Malcolm Fraser or a Robert Menzies would have prejudiced the security of this country or the safety of Australian troops or non-government agency workers for partisan political interests. This is a government that see themselves as born to rule. The trouble is: they have no style and they have no respect for the fundamental institutions of government, no respect for our most senior public servants who are entrusted with vitally important roles of protecting the security of this nation. They are, as I say, in the throes of demise, but they are prepared to crawl over the heads of public servants for their own survival. That is not good enough. That is not a characteristic that we have in Australian governments, but it is a characteristic revealed fairly and squarely by this motion.

If we look at the facts of what has occurred, we see a bit of Howard government speak. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said on numerous occasions that the Leader of the Opposition had no briefings about these matters. Those comments are on the public record on 24 March, 29 March and twice on 25 May. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister himself made those assertions. Well, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said he had had the briefings and stated when those briefings occurred. The Prime Minister today acknowledged that the briefings occurred, but in traditional Howard government speak said that there had been no direct and relevant discussion on Iraq. So we have gone from `no briefings' to `no direct and relevant discussion'; the Prime Minister acknowledged that there was a discussion of matters concerning Iraq but he said that there was no direct and relevant discussion.

What is more direct and relevant to the position of our troops in Iraq than why we went into that war? One of the fundamental reasons for going to war was outlined by the Prime Minister on 13 March 2003 when he was asked if we would still be going to war if Iraq relinquished its weapons of mass destruction. He said:

Well I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime.

That in itself is of direct relevance to a judgment on the ongoing presence of our troops there. Let us talk about hypocrisy. Let us go through some comments made by Alexander Downer, the foreign minister, during this time. On 15 December 2003 on ABC's PM program he said:

By the middle of next year, Iraq should have more than the Iraqi Governing Council they have, but a genuine Iraqi government. And by the time we reach that point, there will obviously be some review of military commitments that different countries have made.

That was one statement he made. The foreign minister said on 31 March last year:

Our commitment is that we'll obviously form part of the Coalition of the Willing, which we're doing. When the war is finished we will be more or less withdrawing the Australian military contribution, and we've made that clear that we're not going to keep any significant number of troops in Iraq in the post conflict situation.

He also said in that interview:

Well the Australian military will continue to make a contribution where it usefully can at the level of the three services and once the war is finished there'll be of course no further contribution for them to make ...

He said on 10 April:

Well we certainly have an aid involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. He—

the Prime Minister—

was I think talking about a continuing Australian involvement in the stabilisation force. We don't want to have substantial numbers of troops remain in Iraq and that's a point that he made to President Bush quite some time ago and I've repeated during my recent visit to the United States. But no, the Prime Minister and I have always said we'll have a role in assisting with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq but not a military role.

What gross hypocrisy to then attack the Leader of the Opposition for saying that we have to have an exit strategy to bring our troops home after there is a transition to a new government in Iraq. Of course we need to have that, and of course that is the advice that the government have had but they are not honest enough to say that. They are not honest enough to tell the Australian people. They are prepared to play politics. That is all they do for their own political survival. Worse than that, they are prepared to prejudice Australia's national security and the safety of Australian troops in a most dangerous part of the world for their own partisan political advantage. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Latham's amendment) stand part of the question.

(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)

Ayes............	78
Noes............	58
Majority.........	20

AYES

NOES

* denotes teller

Question agreed to.

Original question put:

That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to.

(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)

Ayes............	78
Noes............	58
Majority.........	20

AYES

NOES

* denotes teller

Question agreed to.