Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

It is worth observing for the benefit of the chamber not only that Senator Di Natale is incapable of providing the Senate with the courtesy of notice of a motion of such a serious nature as this but also that the cynical amongst us would be entitled to presume that the only reason that Senator Di Natale and the Australian Greens have moved this resolution here this morning, with no notice, with no courtesy to the other parties in the chamber, is to try and hide their own fundamental, inherent defects as a political party in Australia, which apparently are about to be made clear for all to see by the ABC this evening—an interesting turn of interest for the ABC in and of itself.

The decision to send our service men and women into harm and into harm's way is one of the most serious decisions that a government can take. The government is accountable for such decisions to the Australian people. Due to the dynamics and the sensitivities of national security issues, the decision to commit the Australian Defence Force to overseas contingencies continues to be one that is best made by the executive. This is a vital aspect of our proceedings in the Westminster system, if Australia hopes to successfully defend its interests and protect its people. I wouldn't always agree with Senator Gallagher and those on the other side, but the observations that Senator Gallagher made in relation to this process are also apposite. Our current arrangements ensure that the government is able to respond in the national interest where the deployment of the ADF is required.

The government, as Senator Brandis said, does not support this bill. There have been many draft bills of a similar nature over a number of years, designed for authority to go to war on the parliament dating back to 1985. Given the amount of time that I've been in this chamber and associated with this policy area, I have participated in the consideration of those and the debate of many. I reinforce that defending Australia, its people and its interests is the government's highest priority and most important responsibility. The government's duty of care also to the men and women, the members of the ADF, is paramount, and no decision to go to war to engage in conflict is ever taken lightly.

The government's ability to deploy the ADF has long been regarded as an essential prerogative of the executive exercisable under section 61 of the Constitution. The government needs the ability to act swiftly in responding to threats to our national security based on the best advice available. The existing arrangements allow the government to act decisively and respond flexibly to contingencies when they arise. But, importantly, as the Attorney-General said, this power does not prevent the discussion of the testing of the decisions made by the government on the floor of the parliament, and we have seen repeated examples of that engagement over the years. There are appropriate checks and balances on executive power through the normal business of the parliament.

The bill aims to remove the government's power to respond flexibly and immediately to national security issues. It proposes, for example, that members of the ADF may not serve 'beyond the territorial limits of Australia except in accordance with a resolution which is in effect and agreed to by each house of parliament authorising the service.' While the intent behind the bill may, on a very broad consideration, be described as well-meaning, there is underlying fault in its concept and its execution. My view in those previous debates was, and remains, that longstanding Westminster convention allows executive government the discretion to commit forces to operations overseas. The executive branch of government is elected by the people to make those hardest of decisions and is answerable to the people for those decisions.