Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am not going to miss out on drawing attention to the fact that that has not happened. The government has previously given commitments that it would keep parliament updated on national security matters. It has been a while since we have had an update, so I do again call on the government to come into the chamber, outline developments, outline the reasoning and allow a debate to take place in the parliament. I said yesterday that the parliament, the community, the people of Australia all want the government to do the right thing—to come in and have the discussion in both chambers of parliament and allow all political points of view to be expressed. It would be a robust debate. There would be many differing points of view. But this country would be better off if those opposite kept their word—the promise given by the former Minister for Defence in this chamber that they would give regular updates. I again urge the government, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to come in and keep their promise.

This requirement should not, however, be confused with requiring parliamentary approval. The role of the parliament in approving military action is fraught with danger. The government must retain maximum flexibility to respond to threats to Australia's national security quickly and efficiently. Requiring a statement from the government prior to deploying ADF personnel and assets could unnecessarily increase the risk to the deployment. Furthermore, the government of the day has access to classified information which this parliament does not and, given the nature of that information, cannot have. Australia's defence and national security agencies provide information to the government which must remain secret for a whole range of reasons, including the safety and security of our ADF personnel. A requirement for parliamentary approval could also create situations where ADF personnel are deployed to a warlike environment without appropriate legal authority or important legal protections.

In 2010 Adam Bandt introduced a bill on this very issue. It was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The committee report highlighted a number of deficiencies with the operation of the bill in practice, deficiencies which—to this day, five years later—have still not been addressed. The Senate committee found that the 2010 bill 'leaves too many critical questions unanswered' and 'may have unforeseen and unfortunate consequences'. Executive government remains the most appropriate body to exercise civilian control of the Australian Defence Force.

The Greens do themselves a great disservice trying to conflate these two issues. It is appropriate for the parliament to debate government decisions that involve the deployment of ADF personnel, but that should be done in a considered way. I recommend to the Greens that they read the Labor views from that Senate committee. If they have not read them, they should. They contain some excellent contributions from some of my current and former colleagues. We will not support this motion and we urge the Senate to reject it.