Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this motion. Twelve months ago, I rose in this place to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2014, and, 12 months later, I am here to speak on the same issue again. Twelve months after this place first addressed this issue, our Constitution has not changed but Australia is facing an increased and heightened challenge posed by stateless enemies—by Daesh. It is not just the people of Australia who face this grave threat; it is also the millions of Syrians and Iraqis who have been displaced and who now need protection from Daesh.

There is no greater responsibility for any elected national government than to keep the nation safe and secure and in making the decision to utilise military personnel in a wide range of roles, both domestically and overseas. Under our Constitution, the decision to deploy troops is clearly the responsibility of the executive, which is elected by the Australian voters and accountable to them through the parliament. Additionally, our military forces are accountable to the executive and to the Crown, not to the parliament. I believe it is not within the spirit of our Constitution, and it certainly was not the intent of our founding fathers, after many decades of very considered debate, that executive government would ever consider abrogating its responsibility for the serious decision to deploy Australian defence forces in harm's way. Ultimately, in our Constitution and in our country today—in our parliamentary democracy—that is what our executive has been charged with.

Personally, I willingly, and certainly knowingly, have served under both Labor and coalition governments in uniform. Throughout my nearly 30 years in uniform, I always understood and accepted that the government of the day, regardless of its party affiliations, was responsible for making decisions that impacted on not only my service but also the men and women I served with. I knew that would possibly impact on my life itself. While I was never deployed, I always knew that I could be—in fact, I still could be. I had absolutely every confidence, again, regardless of who was in government, that the executive would take the right decision and that it would take into consideration everything that needed to be before it made that decision.

I firmly believe that the Commonwealth Constitution is the birth certificate of our nation. It has operated very successfully for over 100 years and it does provide for the separation of power in Australia between the Commonwealth and the states and between the arms of our government. Chapter I of the Constitution sets out the powers of the Australian parliament and chapter II addresses the executive government. Section 51(vi) of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to:

… naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

In addition, as far as I can see there is no requirement in our Constitution or in any of our defence legislation for parliamentary decisions in most, if not all, aspects of declaring war and the engagement and deployment of our troops. Indeed, former royal prerogatives, including the power to make war, deploy troops and declare peace, are now part of the executive power of the Commonwealth, exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of the Federal Executive Council or the responsible ministers. Contemporary practice is that decisions to go to war or deploy troops are matters for the Prime Minister and for cabinet and do not directly involve in the decision-making process the Governor-General or the Executive Council.

Since the establishment of the National Security Committee of Cabinet in 1996 by John Howard and his government, this body has proven to be the most influential and the most knowledgeable in considering any Australian government decision to commit the Australian Defence Force personnel to the domestic operations or overseas deployments. I see absolutely nothing in the Commonwealth Constitution or, as I said, in defence legislation that requires the executive to engage in a debate or a vote in parliament before committing military force. In fact, parliamentary committees have previously found quite the opposite. For example, in 2010 the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee published a report on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2014. That Senate report highlighted several very significant concerns with potential parliamentary involvement in decisions on the deployment of ADF personnel overseas.

There are three main concerns that greatly troubled me with this proposal and the committee highlighted very genuine concerns about the disclosure of sensitive or classified information. They also raised concerns with the lack of responsiveness and a lack of ability of the parliament to respond quickly, particularly when confronted with the dynamic battle spaces that we have these days and how things need decisions very quickly. They also identified that there was a lack of clarity around when the bill would apply and when these circumstances could be evoked.

That was in 2014 and I do not thing anything has changed since then. In fact, I think the folly of this bill has actually been played out in many, many government decisions now dealing with Daesh and the consequences of their heinous behaviour. In fact, in the current security environment, the need for executive power over the use of military force is, as I said, more necessary than ever and the National Security Committee of Cabinet has proved to be a very effective and very adept organisation of this executive in making these decisions under both governments—this government and the previous government.

Threats can no longer be easily characterised. Even less than 50 years ago, it was still much easier to determine who a likely enemy might be. The armies of states dominated our security environment. But in the early period of the 21st century that we now find ourselves in, this is absolutely not the case. Stateless enemies and terrorists using asymmetric tactics are an ever increasing threat, as we are seeing daily in the Middle East and also now on our own shores. These threats demand the capacity to respond quickly and flexibly and routinely require operational security without the operational knowledge being out there in the general community and available to our enemies. All three of these criteria would be all but impossible to meet if the executive was required to gain the approval of parliament every time it were to commit, change or adapt the utilisation of our military forces.

When you start to unpack and explore the practical implementation of this proposal, there are many credible scenarios relating to why it is not appropriate to require a parliamentary vote to commit our forces overseas. One simple, but very powerful, example of this is to consider the situation of a prorogued parliament. If this legislation were to be in effect, it would be impossible to gain parliamentary approval and for quick and decisive military action to be taken. As one of my colleagues in the other place, Andrew Nikolic, noted recently, this situation has happened and is not hypothetical. In fact, it was August 1914 when Australia went to war. At that time, federal parliament was prorogued. The government of Prime Minister Joseph Cook had been elected with a majority of one and a hostile senate went to a double dissolution election in June 1914. Imagine the circumstance in 1914 if the executive had not been able to meet around that wonderful table, which is now at the National Archives, and quickly made the decisions that needed to be made. Clearly, it was not in the national interest then for this sort of requirement to be in place, just as it is not in the national interest today.

Even when you have a look at the detail and even if parliament was not prorogued, having a look at how the practical circumstances and how the practical application would be, it would be almost impossible to implement. This would require a proclamation to be made. Consider a circumstance where the government does not want it known that forces are serving overseas for their own operational and personal security. Imagine a time when we have got a hostage rescue situation for the Australian forces in Iraq or Syria and we have got to mount a new operation—what do we do? Do we come to parliament? Do we discuss it here? Do we let our enemies know what we are doing? Time is of the essence. We may as well just post everything from the National Security Committee of Cabinet on our website here or set up a bulletin board to let our opponents and Daesh know what we are doing.

There is not only a high possibility but a very high probability that these requirements in practice—particularly in the current environment in the Middle Eastern area of operations that we are currently operating in—would put Australian service men and women in absolute physical danger. For example, the bill that the Greens put forward last year—which we debated at some extent last year—would require just that. Information on deployment would have to be provided to government within two days, even if forces are deploying on the pretences of secret intelligence or on information that cannot be publically shared.

I will just say that again. Just think about the implications for our service men and women of what the Greens proposed last year in that bill to give effect to this motion today: information on deployment would have to be provided to government within two days, even if forces are deploying on the pretence of secret intelligence or on information that cannot be publically shared. As I said, why don't we just put everything up on a bulletin board to say to Daesh and any other enemy in the future, 'Here we are, guys. This is what we're doing. We're coming to rescue our people. We're coming to do these military operations.' That is really not a very safe or a very smart environment.

That is not the only thing in their legislation last year that they wanted in their bill. They also wanted out there in the public: the reasons for the deployment, the geographical extent of the proposed deployment, the expected duration of the deployment and the number of members of the Defence Force proposed to be deployed. I cannot believe that they would actually want to disclose information that would tell our enemies in a conventional war, or in an asymmetrical war such as we are fighting with Daesh at the moment, where we are going, when we are going, how many troops we are going to deploy and how long we are going to be there. What else does the enemy need to know to actually defeat us when we finally hit the ground? It is the most ludicrous proposal. In my mind, it was ludicrous 12 months ago; but looking at the nature of the threat of Daesh today, it is even more fanciful. It is frightening to me that somebody would come into this place and put forward a bill—and now a motion—that says we should telegraph to our enemies what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, where we are going to deploy our troops, how many we are going to deploy and what equipment they are deploying with. That is the strategy for them to defeat us! I still find it unbelievable that anybody in this parliament would suggest such a thing.

This motion falls directly within the remit of findings of the joint standing committee, which identified three key concerns with this approach. It is worthy to note in this place and remind senators of what the parliamentary committee said.

Much of the information under consideration would be classified, for example risks to personnel, Defence or AFP assets, their strength and location, their force readiness, as well as the level of commitment and capabilities of likely allies, and the compatibility and complementarity of their forces. Clearly much of this information could not be disclosed and, if so, would have the potential to compromise the safety and security of any proposed operation or adversely affect diplomatic relations with potential allies.

It was not a coalition senator saying this. It was the parliamentary committee that reviewed the same proposal from the Greens last year. It was absolutely true then, and it was just as ludicrous then as it is today.

The Islamic State, or Daesh, is an enemy unlike anything we have ever faced. There is truly no way anybody can offer to hold hands with them, reason with them and talk messages of peace, because they do not understand that language. They do not respect compassion; they exploit it in the most horrifically gruesome ways—rape, roasting people alive on TV and other horrendous things. I think we heard today that they are not only selling their captives for sex; they are actually selling men and women into slavery. This is an enemy that cannot be treated lightly, and it cannot be treated in the same way that we may have treated our other enemies. We certainly will not win until Daesh is destroyed. We need to protect not only the Australian people but also the 11 million-plus displaced Syrians who will find no peace and no ability to go home until then. Daesh does not respect borders. They are not just in Iraq. They are also in Syria. It is essential for security in the Middle East and also for the Syrian refugees, the millions of displaced Syrians, that we go in and confront this enemy.

The ludicrousness of the Greens' bill last year, now reflected in this motion today, is that we would telegraph personnel details, Defence and other AFP assets—strengths, locations and force readiness—and the level of commitment and capabilities of our likely allies. So we would not only be telegraphing to Daesh, 'Here's who we are, here's where we are and this is how we're going to come and get you,' we would also be telegraphing our allies' information. They would not be our allies for very long, let me tell you. As I said, there is absolutely no other way to characterise the behaviour of these Islamic State and Daesh fighters. We have all seen the horrific photos and images of the pure evil that these people are capable of. They do not understand compassion; they exploit it in the most heinous ways.

The use of military force is never a decision to be taken lightly, but there is no other way to defeat ISIS and Daesh. There will always be risks, but sometimes there are risks in sitting back watching and waiting as the problem gets worse—with more people being killed, raped, beheaded, roasted alive and all of the things that Daesh is now doing quite publicly and wants the whole world to see. There is no other way for many millions of Syrians to be able to go back to their homes until IS, Daesh, has gone. Put in this context, I find it hard to see how Australia has any other choice than to involve itself with our allies. Operations do change and they have moved. The enemy has moved further into Syria. There is no question that, if we want to deal with Daesh, we have to go into Syria with our allies, not just leave them to do the heavy lifting on our behalf.

I fully believe that our intervention is humane and is on the side of the persecuted minorities who have been forced to flee their own homelands—those who have been lucky enough to survive. This is in conjunction with our allies and our partners. It is under the purview of the United Nations. While it may be centred on the Middle East, 10,000 kilometres away, it clearly has an impact on the security of Australians. It is incumbent upon all of us to do what is right to combat evil and to protect those who are at risk of violence and subjugation at the hands of people as evil as Daesh. As human beings it is our obligation not only to protect our own people but to do what we can to protect the people of Syria.

The Greens' opposition to the deployment of the Australian Defence Force in conflict zones is nothing new. We saw that with the bill they proposed last year. In fact, if my recollection is correct, one of my Greens colleagues who is currently in the Senate chamber said:

Terrorist is a word that is very commonly used against us by those same people in Iraq who have been radicalised.

And:

… anything that creates terror is, by definition, terrorism.

And:

Terrorism in the context of national security has a specific meaning. Anything that creates terror is not, by definition, terrorism.

My understanding of Senator Whish-Wilson's words at the time was that, given what we are doing to help the Iraqis and Syrians, our own men and women in uniform could be construed as terrorists. I found that offensive then, and I find it just as offensive today.

The decision to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force has consistently been regarded as a fundamental decision for the executive of the day. It has always been and always should be. (Time expired)