Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats support these two amendments. We have made a longstanding attempt in this parliament via many amendments and, indeed, a private senator’s bill currently on the Notice Paper to require the parliament to approve the use of the military overseas. Obviously, this legislation deals with emergency situations, so the practicality of the parliament authorising in advance the call-out is nonsensical, but the principle of being able to debate and vote on that call-out after the fact, particularly if it is an order of continuing effect, is appropriate and consistent with that principle.

I will not detour totally down the side path of whether it is appropriate for the parliament to authorise the sending of troops to battle overseas or to keep that power with the executive, but our position has been longstanding that it is appropriate, except in an emergency, for the parliament to make those decisions. I note in passing that the new leader of the Conservative Party in the UK has floated as a potentially desirable reform—as I might say have a number of members of the governing Labour Party as well—that parliamentary approval of the use of troops overseas is an appropriate approach for that country to take, as it is, at least in technical terms, in the United States.

This legislation obviously does not involve the use of troops overseas but it does involve the use of the Defence Force. After the fact, it still would be appropriate, firstly, to require the parliament to sit and, secondly, for the parliament to have the opportunity should it wish to make such an order disallowable. The reality is such that it probably is a measure that is unlikely to mean a lot in the vast majority of circumstances because the call-out, in most circumstances, would be in response to a specific incident and an immediate incident. It is not likely to be one that would be stretching out over six days or more but, nonetheless, there is the power there for the order to have continuing effect for longer than six days, as I understand it. So, for consistency of principle, it is appropriate for that power to be there. I will also just emphasise that this is a matter of sufficient significance and sufficient import that it should be automatic that the parliament have the opportunity to be informed about it and to debate it if it so chooses.