Mr EDWARDS (7:50 PM) —Before the House rises tonight, I want to put on the record my disgust over the government's treatment of this House regarding both the war on terrorism and the raft of bills which the government gagged debate on today. I was one of those members of the House who wanted to speak on those bills. It is now on the record that the rights of members on this side to speak on these important bills were denied. So, too, was our responsibility to make this government accountable to the House and to the people of Australia denied. The legislation which passed through this House today was not legislation which members of this place, government or opposition, should treat lightly. I am aware that the bills have been dealt with privately by the internal workings of the Liberal and National parties. I understand that various members opposite raised considerable concern over the process and the content of some of the legislation. None of those government members, however, chose to present their concerns in the parliament today. Neither were members of the opposition given the opportunity to properly scrutinise these bills. The difference is that, whilst government members may be happy to see this place treated as a rubber stamp, we on this side are not.

It is my view that the fight against terrorism is one which must recruit all members of our community. No issue is more important to our nation than the issue of public safety and the issue of public security. Bipartisanship on these issues is paramount. Did we have government members come into this House reflecting the once great spirit of the traditional Liberal Party? No. Instead we saw members like the member for Mitchell, Mr Cadman, come into this House and accuse members of the ALP who sought but were denied the right to speak to these bills of being unpatriotic simply because we chose to debate these bills and because we chose to question the government over aspects of these bills which we believe needed scrutiny. I believe the member for Mitchell made a foolish and cowardly speech. I believe his speech fitted him well.

I also want to reject this Prime Minister's discourteous treatment of the parliament of Australia. Australian troops have been committed to Afghanistan and we have not received as much as a statement to the parliament by the Prime Minister explaining or justifying such a momentous decision. Just as with the legislation that was gagged here today, he took his decision to the party room but not to the parliament of this nation. It is my strongly held view that if Australian troops are to be committed to a war or conflict then the announcement should be made to the Australian people via their house of parliament. If the parliament is not sitting, it should be recalled at the earliest possible opportunity after such an announcement. That the Prime Minister should be able to gain bipartisan support for such a decision and at the same time be accountable for that decision is in my view the minimum requirement of courtesy and respect due to the people of this nation and due to the proper process of democracy.

It is not good enough for the Prime Minister—any prime minister—to simply report in private to his party room. This parliament, the people of Australia and, above all, the members of our defence forces deserve better. It is, after all, the members of the defence forces whose lives are placed on the line. As Kim Beazley, the member for Brand, said today, Australians are at war. There have been casualties and the Prime Minister has warned his party room that there could be more. We expect the members of the Australian Defence Force to conduct themselves in the best tradition of the Anzac spirit and I have no doubt that they will. The least they should expect of us is that we conduct ourselves in the best traditions of our parliamentary democracy, yet today the members of the Australian Defence Force were sadly let down by what happened in this parliament. Members opposite may be comfortable with that, but I assure the people of Australia that we on this side—members of the ALP—are not.

The SPEAKER —Before I recognise the member for Kalgoorlie, I would indicate to the member for Cowan that I have some disquiet about his reference to the member for Mitchell as cowardly and would ask him to withdraw that reference.

Mr EDWARDS —Mr Speaker, I will withdraw. By way of explanation, can I say—

The SPEAKER —The member for Cowan may continue.

Mr EDWARDS —that I used the reference simply because members on this side wanted to speak and could not respond to the allegation that was made. I am sorry that he was not asked to withdraw at the time.

The SPEAKER —I have made the point, as the member for Cowan would be aware, that I have allowed some criticism of the member for Mitchell but I felt that was criticism that was going beyond the pale.