Senator BROWN (12:45 PM) —The Australian Greens also proposed to move that amendment. This whole debate on the eve of the Olympics began for the Olympics—that is, the bill before us could give the politicians in Canberra the ability to call out the armed services if something went wrong at the Olympics. Moreover, it could do so with or without a request from the state government if the Commonwealth felt that its international interests were at stake. Mr Moore, Minister for Defence, in the early part of the public debate said that the bill was for the Olympics, but we find that that is not the case. This bill is for ever and a day. Both the Labor and Liberal parties want at their disposal the power to bring out the Army for some foreseen or unforeseen future event. Effectively, they believe that the Army, acting as a police power, should be able to help them keep the peace, presumably over some domestic political issue in which they have a point of view in government to defend.

I will not recount the points that were made during the debate last Thursday. I will add some points as we come to each of the amendments before the house. I cannot understand why Labor is not supporting this amendment. Labor is today saying that it has forced the government 4-0 to adopt its amendments. It seems to me that what, in effect, has happened is that Labor has gone a long way towards meeting the government and the government has gone a little way towards meeting Labor. The two big parties have made an agreement which sells out the public interest. It certainly sells out the huge number of people who have been sending mail to my office and who do not want the Australian Defence Force put at the disposal of federal politicians for unspecified events for ever and a day.

I repeat that, if this was an antiterrorist bill, okay—but it is not. This bill opens up the field in the future for politicians to use the Australian Defence Force against Australian protestors—peaceful or otherwise—and against strikers. It says that there has to be a likelihood of violence—we will get to that in a moment. I cannot believe that the Labor Party is supporting such legislation, but it is. It has made the required political manoeuvres, as far as it is concerned, to help it feel warm about something that it should feel a rush of horror about. However, the big parties have got together.

I believe that this is against the Constitution—that will be tested further down the line, no doubt. When we get to the appropriate juncture, I will read out one of the opinions as to why it is against the Constitution. In the meantime, I commend this amendment for a sunset clause, so that this bill, which will be there for the Olympics, the Paralympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in a week's time, will become inoperative after that. In fact, it would become inoperative on 1 January 2001. The fact that both Labor and Liberal oppose—and we are going to lose—this amendment shows that they want these powers available for ever and a day. They say that they want to codify the circumstances in which the military is used against terrorists in Australia. I would have no problem with that, but this does not codify it at all. It sets out some wide parameters. The code is in the manual—which we have not seen; we were told that we would see it this week—that is going to replace the Manual of Land Warfare, which describes how civilians could be shot and how and when tanks could be used and describes a number of other things regarding the use of the armed forces. The unthinkable is the Australian Defence Force being arrayed against Australian civilians somewhere in the future at the behest of Commonwealth politicians.

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence if his commitment of last week—that the new manual be made available to the Senate—can be made good today. Or is this going to be a case of, `We will show you the specific new arrangements for the use of troops after this debate is over,' when the public can no longer have meaningful input into the legislation because Labor has helped to get it through the parliament?