Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of issues that confound the proposition that parliament should be required to approve troops prior to their deployment. It is important to distinguish between routine or non-warlike military activities, including peacekeeping, capacity building in other countries, humanitarian assistance and anti-piracy actions, and activities involving the rescue or extraction of Australian citizens from threatening situations overseas; covert operations, such as those involving special forces; and, most importantly, full-scale deployment. These involve varying degrees of emphasis on the role of intelligence and classified materials that are available only to the executive.

There is also the requirement for Defence to mobilise its forces safely and effectively. All cases are not alike and parliament's role differs where the specific constraints differ. The Constitution does not say anything about where the power to deploy troops lies. It is assumed that this is part of the executive power under section 61. There is no constitutional requirement for the executive to seek the blessing of the Australian parliament before troops are committed to war. There is no constitutional need to even debate the decision to deploy troops. The power to deploy troops overseas lies with the Minister for Defence under section 50C of the Defence Act 1903. The Minister for Defence has the legal authority to deploy troops and can require members of the Australian Defence Force to serve overseas.

It is understandable why the community is rightly conflicted about this state of affairs. Clearly, in a democracy the legitimacy of a military operation derives, in large part, from a community consensus, yet it is only the executive which has all the classified information obtained by the intelligence agencies. Where then should the line be drawn? When it comes to routine or non-warlike military activities, such as deploying peacekeeping troops to East Timor, capacity building in places like PNG or the Solomons, or any operations where classified intelligence or military urgency are not factors, troops should not be deployed except with parliamentary approval.

What the government says of the present situation in Iraq and Syria is that time is of the essence. We need to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Essentially, we are facing crimes against humanity. Urgency is the key. However, once the urgency has passed and the troops and resources have been deployed, I believe it is reasonable for the parliament to have a say and that the continued deployment should be subject to parliamentary approval. This is not only logically sound but also provides a valuable check on the executive being dragged into a quagmire.

Let us look at the current circumstances. The trigger, no doubt, was the events following the coalition of the willing invading Iraq in 2003, overthrowing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and then, recklessly, dismissing the entire army and dismantling the Ba'ath Party. These last two events fuelled an insurgency, ignited a vicious civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis, increased Iran's influence and, most tragically of all, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Meanwhile, at the regional level, tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites also increased. For instance, Saudi Arabia backed the crushing of the Arab Spring in order to defeat the Shiites, particularly in Bahrain.

Conflicts between the Shiites and Sunnis have spilled over into the region, most tragically in Syria, which has in turn spawned the so-called Islamic State, which Prime Minister Abbott has quite rightly called a 'death cult'. According to authoritative and credible reporters in the Middle East, including Patrick Cockburn of The Independent newspaper, it is Saudi Arabia that is pursuing its own geopolitical interest by backing this 'death cult', a terrorist organisation that poses a greater existential threat than al-Qaeda. I therefore support humanitarian relief and logistical support as set out in the Prime Minister's address today. This statement also emphasises that there has been no request for military action. However, I am seriously concerned that the Prime Minister has not mentioned in his statement the role of the United Nations in sanctioning this action. Given that Australia is currently a member of the UN Security Council, we have a critical role to play to ensure that this is brought before the United Nations.

Indeed, the role played by Australia in relation to the downing of MH17 over Ukraine and the role played by our Minister for Foreign Affairs has been commendable—and it is leadership that we need to show again in this conflict. We must all be alert to the grave dangers of escalation. We must also learn from the catastrophic consequences of George W Bush's handling of Iraq and Australia, seemingly heedlessly following the US without question. A parliamentary debate and an eventual approval is desirable to avoid the mistakes, not just of the recent past but of previous conflicts, such as Vietnam. Minor incremental increases in the mission can lead to a qualitatively different scenario before we know it. Finally, I wish our troops well. I am sure they will do us proud.