Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The decision to deploy troops overseas into a war zone is always difficult, always dangerous and always important. Such a decision should always demand debate and scrutiny and should be one that Australian citizens can own and be engaged in. Only by returning the power to deploy troops overseas to the most representative branch of government, by requiring both houses of parliament to agree, can sufficient debate and scrutiny exist for a decision to made democratically; for a decision to be as representative of the will of the Australian people as possible.

As we have seen with the parliamentary debate on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, each elected representative that has spoken has made worthwhile contributions on behalf of their constituents—constituents who, through their representatives in a democracy such as ours, should have a say in any question to deploy troops. That the Defence Act does not currently allow for that level of decision making, scrutiny and debate on such important questions is, I believe, a failure of democracy. The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2010 simply requires that such decisions be made not by the executive alone but rather by parliament as a whole.

This bill was initiated by the Democrats and supported by the Australian Greens, who took carriage of the bill after 2007. It is the latest iteration of bills introduced into the Senate in 1985 that aimed to increase the transparency and accountability of governments by involving parliamentary discussion and scrutiny of the decision to deploy Australian military forces to overseas conflicts. It was reintroduced by my party colleague Senator Ludlam in late 2008 and referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in August 2009. The committee, while neglecting to hold a hearing, nonetheless made a useful critique of the bill without undermining its essential purpose, in its report of February 2010. Senator Ludlam’s dissenting report into the bill provided the transcript of an informal ‘hearing’ undertaken subsequent to the majority committee decision not to take evidence directly. I am proud to be the latest in a line of parliamentarians to sponsor a bill with this purpose.

This bill seeks to address the absence of checks and balances on the power of the executive which are characteristic of, and broadly considered essential to, any functioning democracy. Under the Defence Act 1903, the Prime Minister can commit Australian troops to conflict zones without the support of the United Nations, the Australian parliament or the people. The Prime Minister can exercise this power as part of the government’s prerogative powers or through a cabinet decision. The absence of appropriate checks and balances on this decision-making power saw the Australian Prime Minister rapidly deploy troops to an illegal war in Iraq in 2003 without consulting the people’s representatives in parliament. A lesson can and must be learned from this kind of mistake, which is more easily made when a handful of people take closed and secret decisions on behalf of a nation without due consultation or participation. The Howard government was the first government in Australia’s history to go to war without the support of both houses of parliament. This bill provides an opportunity to ensure that this never happens again.

The responsibility of sending Australian men and women into danger and quite possibly to their deaths should not be solely on the shoulders of a handful of leaders, but more broadly shared by policy makers and the public they represent. While citizens do delegate responsibilities to leaders by electing them into power, the democratic system includes an ongoing forum for discussion where leaders must provide reasoning and accounting for their decisions: the parliament. Citizens that do regularly participate and contribute to public debates through engaging their representatives are denied their democratic right to participate in the gravest decision of sending the country to war, which often has implications far into the future.

This bill would bring Australia into conformity with principles and practices utilised in other democracies like Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, where troop deployment is set down in constitutional or legislative provisions. Some form of parliamentary approval or consultation is also routinely undertaken in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. Even our ally the United States has a similar provision that subjects the decision to go to war to a broader forum—section 8 of the US Constitution quite clearly says, ‘Congress shall have power to declare war’.

Arguments against utilising our democratic structures on the important issue of troop deployment made by governments include that it would be impractical, restrictive and inefficient. Such arguments ignore the fact that parliaments can and do make complex and nuanced decisions, rapidly when necessary. While autocracies or dictatorships may well be more speedy and efficient, they are not legitimate or acceptable forms of government. Similarly, decisions about war and peace made in undue haste that do not enjoy the mandate of the population are not legitimate or acceptable, especially when they involve sending Australia’s sons, daughters, fathers and mothers into battle. There are appropriate exemptions made in the bill that do not interfere with the non-warlike overseas service with which Australian troops are engaged. There are also appropriate exemptions in the bill to provide for the practicalities of situations where parliament cannot immediately meet.

The international community supports countries emerging from conflict in a process known as ‘security sector reform’. During this post-conflict reconstruction phase, security forces are retrained and, importantly, decision making is restructured to conform to democratic principles. A core component of regaining public faith in an effective security sector is placing it under democratic control. One standard espoused by the international community is military forces coming under the general rules of parliamentary control, accountability and other procedures seen as important in establishing transparent and legitimate government. It is time that Australia joined its closest allies and like-minded democratic states by involving the parliament in the decision to send troops into battle. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

See this speech in context