Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (17:39): If you look out the front doors of Parliament House, you cannot help but see the vision of the avenue and then ultimately the Australian War Memorial. It is the men and women who have served this nation, who have been willing to give their lives, who in fact allow us to celebrate and enjoy the democracy we have in Australia today. So those of us who participate in this debate need to acknowledge up-front the service of the men and women who have been willing to lay down their lives for us so that we can enjoy the freedoms that we have today. That surely has to be the starting point in any debate, any concern, in relation to our defence forces. Men and women of previous generations have protected us from invasion by dictatorships. They continue to do so. They continue to protect us. And, when we have engaged in theatres of war around the world, it has been to protect not only us but also our friends and fellow human beings from the ugly hand of dictatorship. We have stood by friends in the support of freedom. Now, into that history in recent times has been brought this credible information that certain untoward activities may have occurred. The mover of the motion continually asserted—falsely, might I add—that crimes had been committed. That remains to be determined. If you want to rely on this report, you have to do so with integrity. You cannot pick and choose and say all the generals up the chain of command have to take responsibility; therefore, I reject that part of the report. But the honourable senator, in moving the motion, has also rejected that part of the report which says that it is credible information but nothing has been proven. One of the great civilising features of our society is that we actually believe in the rule of law, that we actually believe in the presumption of innocence, that we do rely on proof, that we do require evidence before we are willing to condemn people. Can I remind the honourable senator that, because we are a civilised society, we do not believe in the lynch mob. We do not believe in the feral activities of people saying, 'I don't like this person and let's start condemning the person,' because we know how that ends up. Australia has just recently gone through a very shameful chapter in relation to Cardinal George Pell, where the High Court of Australia—seven-nil—came to the conclusion that an innocent man may well have been convicted. It was seven-nil in the High Court yet hundreds of thousands of people around this— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John? Senator Steele-John: Nowhere in this motion is there a mention of Cardinal George Pell, so I would ask you to bring Senator Abetz to order on the issue of relevance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am listening to Senator Abetz's contribution very carefully and I will draw his attention to the content of the motion. Thank you, Senator Abetz. Senator ABETZ: I would have thought even the honourable senator would have understood the consequences of a lynch mob seeking to condemn a person without going through the proper judicial system of proving things. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Abetz. Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson: On a point of order, Senator Steele-John is not honourable because he has not been a minister. I think Senator Abetz should refer to him as Senator Steele-John. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will take some of the interjections around the chamber. I thought that we were in the manner of referring to ourselves as honourable if we so wished. I will ask Senator Abetz to continue with his contribution. Senator ABETZ: Here we are, being told by the Australian Greens that this is an urgent matter of great principle, yet we have the laughter and the stupidity of those sorts of points of order indicating that the Australian Greens do not take this matter as seriously as they have asserted by moving a matter of urgency. But I go back to the point that one of the great civilising features of our society is that we don't believe in the lynch mob, that we do believe in the rule of law, that we do believe that a person should be convicted only on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of mere assertions. And let's be very clear about the report in which the senator—I will delete the word 'honourable', and I must say I feel more comfortable in just referring to him as a senator—says that there is credible information. As a result of credible information, you go through the process of investigating to ascertain whether or not the credible information can be proven, and the report itself says that many of those things that they have found have not been put to a standard of proof—not even on the basis of the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. All they're asserting is that there is credible information. Let's also be clear that, in this motion, we are being told that the military chain of command needs to be held to account for their role. What did the inquiry find? I quote: The Inquiry has found no evidence that there was knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the commission of war crimes, on the part of commanders at troop/platoon, squadron/company or Task Group Headquarters level, let alone at higher levels such as Commander Joint Task Force (CJTF) 633, Joint Operations Command, or Australian Defence Headquarters. Nor is the Inquiry of the view that there was a failure at any of those levels to take reasonable and practical steps that would have prevented or detected the commission of war crimes. But here we have the Australian Greens, despite this finding, coming in and demanding the resignation of certain people higher up in the defence forces. On what basis? On the basis that they know better than the inquiry—they know better than everybody else. According to the Australian Greens, these men should be required to resign from their positions. Why? Because the Greens say so—not because of an inquiry finding anything. In fact, the inquiry found the exact opposite of that which the senator is asserting to us and the nation—that these matters— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order, Senator Abetz. Senior Steele-John? Senator Steele-John: As unhappy as I always am to be verballed by Senator Abetz, I made it clear in my contribution that I called for their resignation on the basis of a real or perceived conflict of interest. I am unhappy about being verballed like this by the senator. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, if you want to— Senator Steele-John interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's a debating point, Senator Steele-John. You can seek to correct the point at the end of the debate if you wish to, but, otherwise, I will ask Senator Abetz to continue with his contribution. Senator ABETZ: You always know that you're making a solid contribution when the Greens raise frivolous points of order. This is now the third one. We'll see if they get another one in within the 10 minutes. But we were told that crimes had been committed. We were told that the Gillard government is responsible as well. And, of course, I am well reminded of the fact that the only reason we had the Gillard government was that the Australian Greens signed up with them. So, if the Gillard government is responsible, let's deal with Senator Bob Brown accordingly as well, and let's see them scuttle away like cockroaches when you turn the light on. They will not want to be— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Abetz. Senator ABETZ: And here we go—spurious point of order No. 4. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Abetz! Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson: Not spurious at all—I'd ask the senator to withdraw that imputation. That was used by the Nazis repeatedly as propaganda— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson: Cockroaches and shining lights on them has been used by the Nazis and the same totalitarian regimes that you referred to in your speech, Senator Abetz. You know that and you should withdraw that imputation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Abetz, if you could clarify your comments, that would be appreciated, and then continue. Senator ABETZ: I'm terribly sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President, but there is no need to clarify a well-known expression about cockroaches scuttling away when you turn on the lights. It is a common turn of phrase within the Australian parlance, and I have never known it to be associated as Senator Whish-Wilson in his frivolous point of order seeks to assert. But, let's be very clear: did they deny in that point of order that the only reason the Gillard government was able to be in existence was that Senator Bob Brown and the Australian Greens joined them to allow them to then commit those crimes, about which Senator Steele-John regaled the Senate? If we go right up the chain of command and demand that all the parliamentarians responsible be held responsible, it would mean that Senator Bob Brown would be responsible as well and would need to be dealt with. Of course, that is where, when you take the Greens' logic to its proper extent, you find that their arguments fall apart. They are internally inconsistent. All that said, what the government has sought to do and has done very responsibility is to ensure that this credible information is dealt with in a proper manner through the rule of law, through the proper system, that it be investigated and ascertained, and then we can determine whether or not men and women ought be charged and, if so, with what charge—and the consequences that flow. This is not for this chamber to determine. We have the rule of law in this country for a very good reason. We do seek to ensure that it's not parliamentarians who determine who gets charged or who gets convicted. That is for a separate arm of our government, the judicial system, to determine. What I simply say to Senator Steele-John and others in this place is be very, very careful what you wish for, because one day, as you seek to use the parliament to condemn people, others in this parliament may then use it as well. It is a dangerous precedent which should be rejected.