Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Rudd) and future Prime Ministers to refrain from engaging Australia in war without first gaining the agreement of the Australian Parliament.

Question put.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I would like to make a short statement on the issue on which the Senate has just voted. Senators who have been in the chamber for a long time will not be surprised that I make the point, as I have done on many other occasions, that this is one of those general business notices of motion that is so critical—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I cannot hear Senator Faulkner.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I please have some order on my left. Senator Faulkner cannot be heard.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making the point that, on very many occasions in this chamber, I have pointed out what a blunt instrument a formal general business notice of motion is, particularly when deciding issues of such critical importance as those contained in the motion Senator Brown has just moved. I think we would all acknowledge—I certainly would acknowledge—what an important issue this is. It is so important that it is a matter that warrants not a vote in the Senate but the capacity for amendment to the motion before the Senate and serious and proper debate and consideration. If ever a case can be made about the importance of these procedures then certainly it is true in relation to this particular motion.

I would say that the government takes the view that the decision to conduct and sustain military operations is a function of executive government. It is also fair to say that the era of neat declarations of war for conflicts between uniformed and organised forces of two or more sovereign and recognised nation states is thankfully an era that is largely of the past. But the truth is that the nature of security and military threats in the current era is such that military responses need to be flexible and rapid, and they obviously need to be able to occur within a matter of hours, not days or weeks. It is true also, as I know that each and every senator in this chamber is aware, that the Australian Defence Force has elements on standby to meet contingencies on foreign shores, and their notice-to-move time is less than what could be expected for the conduct of a motion on the issue to deploy—let alone the time it might take to debate such a matter, even if the parliament were sitting.

These are the sorts of issues that, on motions like this, need to be examined and explored. I do not for one moment underestimate or understate the significance of the issue that we have debated, but for very many years—since the mid-1990s—I have drawn the attention of this chamber to my concern about using this sort of procedure on issues of significance like this. I wanted to reinforce those substantive points in relation to the issue that the motion addresses and also the process points in relation to this particular matter.

It is of course the view of the government that governments are elected to govern and to provide leadership across the spectrum of executive function, as all senators know. But military operations, particularly in the current era, require decisive and clear direction from the executive. It is these sorts of issues that really should be explored in a debate like this. I am concerned about the use of such a blunt instrument and I reinforce the comments I have made previously on many occasions about the inappropriateness of this mechanism for such a serious matter being dealt with before the Senate.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Committing Australia to war is perhaps one of the most serious decisions the government of the day can make. The opposition agrees with what the government has just said. General business notices of motion are not really the appropriate way to deal with such serious issues. Any requirement that the government should obtain the permission of the parliament before committing Australia to war is an issue that should be the subject of substantial and considered debate. Certainly, the opposition would say that these sorts of matters are best dealt with by processes other than simply putting up a general business notice of motion.

As Senator Faulkner has pointed out, from time to time through this process we have touched on issues such as the death penalty and other matters of equal severity and we have indicated on those occasions that we do not believe it is appropriate that they be dealt with in this way. In no way does that mean that the opposition understates or underestimates the importance of the issue; it is the very importance of this matter that requires it to be dealt with by way of substantial and considered debate. I think that this issue should not be dealt with by way of a general business notice of motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I generally concur with the remarks that this deserves a much more serious and long-term debate. It is a very important matter when a nation goes to war. As we all know, the President of the United States cannot commit that nation to war without first going to both houses of the Congress. That, simply, is what is being sought in this motion. That said, the fact is that the government and the opposition both see this as a serious matter but have not brought it in any other form before the Senate, or indeed the House of Representatives, in living memory.

However, remedy is at hand. Senator Andrew Bartlett from the Democrats has before the Senate now a bill which does deal with this matter at some very considered length. I have written to Senator Bartlett today to say that, if it is not dealt with before 1 July, I commit to carrying on his excellent bill to ensure that the debate that we have just heard called for by both sides, the government and the opposition, will indeed take place in the Senate. So I ask both the government and the opposition to look at that bill from Senator Bartlett seriously. It canvasses many of the difficulties that we have just heard about. It is a serious piece of legislation and it will bring serious debate to the Senate. Like Senator Bartlett, I do not agree that a Prime Minister should have the sole power to commit this country to war. It should be a matter for the parliament.

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

by leave—I would briefly like to indicate the Democrats concurrence, not surprisingly, with what Senator Bob Brown has just said. I support his suggestion that people look closely at the Democrats bill. I should say for the record, to put the Democrats bill in wider context, that it is actually an issue that was first raised as long ago as 1981 by former Democrat Senator Colin Mason from New South Wales, and it has been raised many, many times since. So it is an issue that has been on the Senate’s agenda for a little while. Whilst the world has changed since then, as Senator Faulkner said, I think that is more reason than ever to examine the issue, as Senator Brown suggested.