Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I want to begin by starting where Senator Green concluded: with the respect for our Defence Force personnel. I want to acknowledge all of those women and men who have worn the uniform of our defence forces, those who do wear the uniform of our defence forces and those who will choose to do so in the future. Each of them voluntarily chooses to stand in defence of our nation, our values and our interests and to do so in the service of our country, selflessly. I acknowledge what they do as individuals, but I also acknowledge very much their families and the support that they provide.

I want to acknowledge Senator Green's contribution, which was a very thoughtful and considered contribution on the details and principles of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020. They are important principles in terms of the consideration of national security and defence and strategic matters for our nation. The importance of the way in which we go about consideration of those defence and security issues requires us to bring a calm and considered approach; to be able to handle matters with the utmost of confidence and sensitivity; and to respond in relation to sensitive and difficult matters with information that is sourced from a variety of locations, some of it highly confidential, but all of it important to reaching firm and clear conclusions.

I have sat around the National Security Committee of cabinet. It is a solemn responsibility to do so, to find yourself in a situation where you are briefed routinely about activities and threats to our nation; threats to our interests and those of other nations, partners, friends, allies, neighbours; and challenges that we face in the world. Equally, you are briefed about the challenges of natural disasters, peacekeeping operations and a range of different factors, and done so with information sourced from a variety of different countries, platforms, and intelligence means. That solemn responsibility is one where you make critical decisions about the future interests of the nation. I sat there as you made some of those decisions, not in deploying trips to war but certainly in deploying our troops in support of international policing operations and in deploying our AFP officers to undertake those international policing operations. I sat there as a member when we made decisions to deploy our troops in circumstances for the evacuation of Australian personnel, potentially dangerous circumstances and life-threatening circumstances; and through all of those decisions to continue to provide support in places like Iraq, where we have had troops placed for some period of time. Their operations today are very different—still difficult, but different—to the operations from when they were first deployed there.

All of those decisions weigh heavily upon you, as they should; as should the sensitive security briefings that are provided; as should the difficult decisions to be made about defence investment, positioning and force posture. All such factors require you to weigh the advice before you, assess the advice that you're receiving and give careful consideration to the actions you're taking. You have to do so mindful of the fact that there are human lives at the end of it. There are the human lives of the Australian Defence Force personnel; there are the lives of their families; there are the lives of the people they serve alongside; there are the lives, of course, of those, where it comes to it, that they fight against; and there are the lives of many civilians and other innocent bystanders in any such situation. Weighing all of those issues is something that I would hope anybody tasked with those responsibilities would undertake.

This bill, and the approach that Senator Steele-John takes in his argument, has a fundamental failure in its thesis and application, and that is that it ignores the reality that I, previously as a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet, or those ministers in the current government who serve in the NSC are, under our system of government, ultimately accountable. They are members of the executive because under our system of government they are, first and foremost, members of this parliament. They are members of the executive because, under our system of government, they are part of a government that commands majority support in the House of Representatives. Within this bill and this approach advocated there seems to be a perception that the executive sits over here and the parliament sits over there. And, yes, we talk about the separation of powers, but there is an intrinsic link within our Westminster system of government, an intrinsic link that you do not get to be in executive without the support of the parliament. And you do not get to remain a member of the executive without the support of the parliament. The reason I stand on this side of the chamber and not on the other side is because my party no longer commands the support of the parliament for me to be a member of the executive. And so, when it comes to deployment of troops, the premise that every decision of the executive ought be verified by the parliament is one that does not require the type of legislative intervention or the type of approach that Senator Steele-John advocates for. That's because if the majority of the parliament did not support that deployment, then ultimately the consequence of that would potentially be the fall of that government.

Now, that then goes to the argument of: 'But what about scrutiny? What about accountability?' Well that, of course, is precisely what the parliament is for. There is no shortage of scrutiny and accountability when it comes to any of the big decisions that government takes. Through its various important committee structures, through its estimates proceedings, through debates such as the one we're having right now, through question time processes and through a range of other opportunities for senators, this chamber upholds the right to scrutinise, the right to argue and the right to contest—and these are all rights we have to be very conscious of defending. Indeed, the defence of those rights is part of the reason why we have a defence force, to be able to undertake those approaches.

The conscious decision that the founders of the Commonwealth of Australia took to put section 68 of the Constitution in place, providing that the command of naval and military forces is vested in the Governor-General and therefore in the executive of government, is one that recognises the direct command is an important principle for the effective operation of our defence forces. The ability of executive government to make decisions in critical times is an important thing. The ability of executive government to make those decisions having been fully informed of all of the available information, evidence and analysis—including that which, for sensitive reasons of national security, sensitive reasons that could jeopardise or threaten the life of military personnel, may not all be able to be made public—means there is a logic there. But none of that logic in terms of the executive government having those powers vested in it means in any way, shape or form that we should overlook the reality that the executive is accountable to this place.

For those reasons, the coalition do not support this bill, as we have not supported previous versions of this bill that have been considered and debated over some period of time. We do believe that, consistent with the way our constitution was written and has operated for more than 120 years, the decision to deploy Australian Defence Force personnel should remain at the discretion of the executive. The executive should have that ability to act in a timely manner, and to do so in the best interests of our national security. But, of course, the executive must always remain accountable to this place. Its decisions, whether they be to deploy troops into combat operations or peacekeeping operations or other supportive operations around the world, should nonetheless not be subordinated to the parliament, but of course the executive, in making those decisions should be, must be firmly accountable to the parliament.

This bill, having its origins in previous bills, has in various guises been considered by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee before. That committee has upheld in a bipartisan way, as indeed the debate ensuing here in this chamber does today, that the powers ought to remain with the executive. Whilst acknowledging the critical importance of parliamentary debate, the committee has previously stopped short of accepting the requirement for the houses of parliament to approve the deployment of Australian troops. It's acknowledged, in relation to arguments as to why we should maintain the current longstanding constitutional practices, that the disclosure of classified or sensitive intelligence may compromise the operations or the safety of Australian forces or those who they serve alongside.

That committee, in its reports and work, has also made the point that if, in order to protect our forces or our allies, classified information had to be withheld from the parliament then those critical decisions about deployment would not be fully informed. That is a point of tension, I appreciate. The parliament itself seeks to resolve that, in part, through the establishment of different committees and procedures for the sharing of classified information. Of course, at critical times in the nation's history and in the history of democratic governments, including Westminster governments, we have even seen the formation of war cabinets or other approaches that really bring the parties of government together to ensure that all are informed.

At present, on intelligence and security matters, we do that through the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which brings together the parties of government to receive the most sensitive of briefings and to understand and engage with our security agencies on the risks we face. We also do it by other means. I acknowledge that Senator Wong, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is routinely generous in offering and providing relevant sensitive security briefings to me, and the government does so for the shadow minister for defence as well, ensuring that we are versed in understanding of some of the difficult and sensitive issues that the government is dealing with. Whilst not all of the intelligence can be shared publicly, it helps to inform our understanding of the decisions that government is making. It's the parliamentary democracy working at its best, recognising real-world realities around what can and cannot be made public but finding means to accommodate those so that executive government can function, make its decisions and be held accountable but, in that accountability process, can also know that all information is being weighed.

Senator Steele-John spoke about other nations. In reality, if we take a look across our Five Eyes partners, for example, overwhelmingly similar practices exist. Some have chosen to bring debates to the floor of their parliaments, but that does not remove the right of their executives to make necessary decisions or prevent the executives exercising that right. That's why we should maintain a practice that for more than 120 years has served our defence personnel and has served governments of the day. Governments may not get every decision absolutely right but each of them is, and absolutely must be, accountable to this place. That's the best way to uphold the integrity of our system.