Senate debates

Monday, 1 September 2014

Ministerial Statements

Iraq and Syria

5:00 pm

Photo of Alex GallacherAlex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a contribution in this debate. I want to start by going back over a little of the history of the debate.

Very clearly, since 1901 neither the Australian Constitution nor the defence legislation has required the government to gain parliamentary approval for a decision to deploy forces overseas or, in the rare cases that it has occurred, to declare war. The Australian Democrats, the predecessors of the Australian Greens, have long had the view that they would like to remove the exclusive power of the government to commit Australia to war or to deploy troops overseas.

The most recent inquiry reported on 25 February 2010, when the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee reported on an Australian Greens’ Bill—the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. The committee concluded that the bill could not be considered a credible piece of legislation and recommended that the bill not proceed. However, the committee also stated:

The committee is not in any way against the involvement of both Houses of Parliament in open and public debates about the deployment of Australian service personnel to warlike operations or potential hostilities. It agrees with the views of most submitters that the Australian people, through their elected representatives, have a right to be informed and heard on these important matters.

It is also worthwhile taking a few minutes to go a little further back in this debate and examine some of the earlier legislative proposals.

As I said, the Australian Democrats in particular initiated steps to remove the exclusive power of the government to commit Australia to deploy personnel into warlike activities. It goes back to 1985, when Senator Colin Mason from the Australian Democrats introduced the Defence Amendment Bill 1985, which sought to require parliamentary approval in most circumstances before Australian troops could be deployed overseas. The bill proceeded to the second reading stage, but without government and opposition support it did not pass.

During these debates over committing troops to Iraq in 2003, Senator Andrew Bartlett and Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja also introduced a private senator’s bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary approval for Australian involvement in overseas conflicts) Bill 2003. The bill proposed to repeal and substitute section 50C of the Defence Act 1903, which allows the deployment of troops overseas.

So, there is a long history of those people in the Democrats and the Greens having this view that the Australian government should be required to seek parliamentary approval. This has really been a baton which has been passed from the Democrats. With no Democrats remaining in the parliament after June 2008, in September of that year Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens introduced a bill of the same name—the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. It too sought to repeal section 50C of the Defence Act 1903 and to replace the section with a new provision which would require parliamentary approval before troops could be deployed overseas. The bill was introduced on 17 September 2008 and on 20 August 2009 was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee once again. The committee reported, basically, the same result—it was not supported.

So, this is not a new debate. And I am sure that this debate will continue as long as the Greens, or a like-organisation, are represented in this parliament. And they have every right to argue this way, but my position is to support both the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten, and the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Tony Abbott. They, and in particular the Prime Minister and the executive, have—as earlier contributions have said—been made privy to all the security assessments that would be necessary to make this extremely important decision. I have to say that if this has worked since 1901 then I have no reason to believe that it should be changed here in 2014.

In brutal political terms, if a government makes a misstep in this place they will suffer at the appropriate time when the electors of Australia make a judgement. But one thing I am absolutely certain of is that once a prime minister and cabinet make this decision, that our people—Australian service men and women—are committed to areas of conflict, then they need the 100 per cent support of the Australian people. They need 100 per cent of what is necessary for them to do their job in the best possible way. If they are to put their lives at risk then the Australian people should be 110 per cent behind them.

I accept the debate in this place about whether we should or should not have parliamentary approval before this happens. The reality is and the history is that it has been debated quite a number of times before and it has not found the support in this Senate or in the other place to change it. So when we have these momentous decisions made—and the awesome responsibility for those who make those decisions is evident—then I think it is incumbent on everyone to accept what the legal situation is.

I well remember when Prime Minister John Howard committed troops to Timor. There was a lot of debate in some quarters of the union movement and some quarters of the ACTU about not resourcing that effort. I know from my own particular time at the Transport Workers Union that, once we understood that it was the Prime Minister's right under the Constitution to commit our troops to Timor, we knew it was our duty as unionists and citizens to make sure that the people who were carrying out that task were resourced in a way that made sure they were safe, were secure and had 110 per cent of the capability to carry out those very onerous duties.

There is no clearer situation than what is confronting us in this awful conflict. It is extremely clear that the Iraqi army faced not only a homicidal but suicidal force that has captured sufficient territory and controls enormous amounts of resources and wealth. There are also the Kurdish people who are attempting to look after their own people who have been displaced and pushed back. I do not think it needs a tremendous degree of common sense to understand that what we are doing, in conjunction with all of the other countries that are contributing, is a very sensible thing to do. From time to time, we are put in these situations where someone has to make a call. The Hon. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia, has made a call. The Leader of the Opposition is in extreme agreement, I would say. We all know it is a very difficult and onerous situation. We hope and wish if we commit people to areas of conflict that those people can do their jobs safely and well and that we can have an outcome that we as Australians can be proud of.

We will continue to have this debate. There is no possibility of it going away. As I said earlier, it has been around since at least 1985 when it was raised by the Australian Democrats. It has been picked up by the Australian Greens. That is their prerogative. But I think, in these cases, the parliament should get behind our service men and women once they have been committed to any area of conflict under a rightly constituted authority.

Comments

No comments