

- Title
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Australian Defence Force: Deployment
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
30-03-2004
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
40
- Electorate
Tasmania
- Interjector
DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The
- Page
22273
- Party
IND
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Murphy, Sen Shayne
- Stage
Australian Defence Force: Deployment
- Type
- Context
Matters of Urgency
- System Id
chamber/hansards/2004-03-30/0088
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- COMMITTEES
- TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
- BUSINESS
- TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2003 [NO. 2]
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Social Welfare: Pensions and Benefits
(Collins, Sen Jacinta, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Australian Defence Force: Deployment
(Ferguson, Sen Alan, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Social Welfare: Pensions and Benefits
(Forshaw, Sen Michael, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Indigenous Affairs
(Mason, Sen Brett, Vanstone, Sen Amanda) -
Social Welfare: Pensions and Benefits
(Moore, Sen Claire, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Environment: Murray-Darling River System
(Bartlett, Sen Andrew, Macdonald, Sen Ian) -
Family Services: Stronger Families and Communities Strategy
(Stephens, Sen Ursula, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Iraq
(Nettle, Sen Kerry, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Taxation: Family Payments
(Denman, Sen Kay, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Telstra: Privatisation
(Heffernan, Sen Bill, Minchin, Sen Nick) -
Trade: Ugg Boots
(Carr, Sen Kim, Minchin, Sen Nick) -
Trade: Free Trade Agreement
(Ridgeway, Sen Aden, Kemp, Sen Rod) -
Auslan: Funding
(Forshaw, Sen Michael, Patterson, Sen Kay)
-
Social Welfare: Pensions and Benefits
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES
- BUSINESS
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- LEAVE OF ABSENCE
- GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE ART COLLECTION
- MATTERS OF URGENCY
- DOCUMENTS
- NATIONAL SECURITY: TERRORISM
- LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE
- DOCUMENTS
- COMMITTEES
- BUDGET 2003-04
- COMMITTEES
- OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT) AMENDMENT (EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND COMPLIANCE) BILL 2002
- FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS) BILL 2003
- TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- BUSINESS
-
MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2002
- Second Reading
-
In Committee
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Harradine, Sen Brian
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Vanstone, Sen Amanda
- Sherry, Sen Nick
- Bartlett, Sen Andrew
- Third Reading
- BUSINESS
- HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Page: 22273
Senator MURPHY (4:32 PM)
—I am sure our defence forces would be somewhat bemused by the matter of urgency debate in this parliament at the moment and by what can really only be described as total political one-upmanship using the troops in Iraq. We have the government position, which seeks to exploit the opposition's view—or at least the Leader of the Opposition's view—that the troops ought to be brought home by Christmas. We have the Democrats' position, which seems to be contradictory to positions they have previously expressed but which is also seeking to exploit the situation from a public and political point of view. Of course, the opposition is seeking to amend the Democrats' motion with a somewhat changed view of attempting to bring the troops home by the end of 2004. Then we have the Greens' position, which is for an immediate withdrawal of some of the defence personnel, with the exception of those that are required to protect Australian diplomatic representatives, which is a rather interesting position as well.
I am sure that the defence forces of this country would be somewhat disappointed that we are having this debate. Sure, there was a situation that occurred so that, in essence, we participated in the invasion of Iraq on a false premise, on wrong information. We will never know to what extent the government of the day here knew about—or to what extent they had information that would at least indicate to them that there were no—weapons of mass destruction. We have heard that position change time and time again, and it continues to change. Of course we did go there; we are there. The country of Iraq is in a terrible state and it would be a shame if we were to walk away from something that we probably should not have started in the first place. If we were to walk away from it, that would not allow the Iraqis the opportunity to get their country rebuilt and it would not give them some opportunity for the future. But this is not really the way to go about it.
I think that the time we are consuming in the Senate by what can only be described as political opportunism in an election year and kicking our defence forces around like a political football is reprehensible. That really should not be the case. We should not be arguing about when they should come home. Even the opposition suggest that they should come home after the job is done. I am amused by the call by the Democrats to get the Prime Minister of the day to somehow define the task that needs to be done, which is a very interesting proposition. (Time expired)