David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not necessarily approve of the approach taken by the Greens here in procedural terms, but I do want to put on the record the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party, as a matter of policy, asks that all commitment of troops overseas for conflict purposes require a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. There is a significant principle at stake here, and that is who—the executive or the parliament—should be responsible for sending our young men and women into danger.

The risk is that, if it is left to the executive, there is significant potential for adventurism, for political posturing and for engaging in activities that are not in the national interest. I am not suggesting that applies in this instance. In fact, I am quite in favour of supplying the Peshmerga with military equipment and I hope it leads to a Kurdish state. But this is a very profound decision. It is too profound, too serious, with too many implications, to be left to the executive.

This same debate occurs in the United States. There is a constant tug of war between the congress and the President as to who should commit forces to military action overseas. Technically, congress has the right to declare war yet the President goes to war, notwithstanding no declaration of war, and there is a constant argument about it.

It is also not about flexibility or operational matters. We are talking about the commitment of forces, not what they do, not how they operate, not when they go, not when they come home. It is not what they do while they are there; it is whether they go at all. It is about deployment per se. That is a profound matter and it should be up to the parliament to decide when that occurs.