Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In beginning the debate on the Greens bill to require a vote before our troops are deployed overseas, I want to first acknowledge that we are gathered here, in this place, on the unceded sovereign lands of the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people, to pay respect to their elders and to acknowledge that that sovereignty, fundamentally, has never been ceded.

Though unceded, the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri share with all First Nations people a continued violation of that sovereignty that began at the moment of invasion, at the moment of the beginning of the war for the conquest of this nation. It was a war whose battlefront swept from Western Australia and the massacres of Pinjarra through to the black lines of Tasmania, a war whose massacre sites, whose battle sites, whose internment camps, were then turned into holiday destinations for those who declared themselves the victors. It was a war that sat back and allowed the names of those who participated in it, who perpetrated the massacres, to be elevated to the highest station and to be placed upon the streets and place names that the colonisers then built. This is the first war and the original sin of the colonial Australian nation and, as we begin this debate on matters of war and peace, it is only right to establish this debate in that fundamental foundation.

Twenty years on from the war in Iraq and the wars in Afghanistan and 50 years on from the Vietnam War, with the deaths of millions of civilians—overwhelmingly people of colour, dead as a result of wars started by rich white men for the purposes of maintaining rich white power—and with thousands of Australian Defence Force personnel lost, wounded or struggling, to this day, with the impact of war, it is only right that Australians are asking why a Prime Minister alone should continue to be allowed to have the sole power to send our forces overseas without first seeking a vote of this parliament.

This question is particularly relevant given that, again and again, we have seen prime ministers join in with US wars because it suited their interests. We have seen, again and again, prime ministers lie to the community about what we were really fighting for and whether there was another way. These are important questions for any democracy. Any democracy should be able to ask them and seek answers to them.

Even the most basic commitment to the principle of democracy should lead decision-makers to the conclusion that such a significant decision should be subject to a vote, as it is in so many other nations. But in Australia this decision is kept close by the leaders of the major parties. The Australian government deliberately keeps this decision as far away from the public as possible, to protect those in power from any form of accountability for the decisions they make and the decisions our community have to live with and suffer through.

Both parties, over decades, have made use of legal loopholes and flimsy interpretations to wage wars that have led to some of the most severe and devastating humanitarian consequences. In the war in Afghanistan there were over 200,000 killed, including 41 members of the Australian armed forces. There was the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, which claimed the lives of half a million people, displaced 1.2 million—to this day—and created five million orphans. It also took the lives of four ADF personnel and wounded a further 27. The Vietnam War and the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia resulted in millions of dead in those nations, including 500 ADF personnel. Our ally, the United States, dropped more bombs on the tiny country of Vietnam in that war than it did during the entire Second World War.

Each one of these wars has one thing in common—they lacked a clear objective or a strategy, and it was the ordinary people of all nations that suffered. Those responsible for making those decisions were never held accountable nor forced to properly explain or account for their actions. And, particularly in the case of Iraq, the Australian community was united. Ninety-two per cent of the Australian community was united. We marched together, hundreds of thousands in capital cities across this ancient continent as part of the largest human protests in the history of our species, because we knew we were being lied to. We knew that Howard was lying, we knew that Bush was lying, we knew that Blair was lying and we did not want to see our children go and die in their war. Yet, in this country, because of the collusion of both major parties, the power to go to war is held solely by the executive. The people gathered in their righteous might were unable to translate that force into a democratic outcome, because both of you had worked together for decades to make sure that couldn't happen. So we were dragged to war based on a lie and we bore the cost and the people of Iraq bore the cost. ADF personnel and their families to this day are picking up the pieces. They're trying to put their lives back together, while the politicians who sent them to war live lavishly on pensions and are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches about leadership when they themselves refuse to this day to face the effect of the decisions that they made or to be held accountable.

I would say to this chamber that, if a mum has to be kept up all night in bed worrying about their child who is to this day deployed in Iraq as part of Operations Okra or Operations Accordion, even though their child isn't old enough to even remember who Saddam Hussein was, then the parliament should be held responsible for sending them there. If mums and dads, family members and friends have to do that stress, bear that burden, every single day, never knowing whether that knock at the door will be the dreaded knock or that phone call will be the dreaded phone call, then the least the politicians who sent them there can do is be willing to vote on that decision, take accountability on that decision, sit on a damn side and declare, 'I thought this was a good idea, and, if you disagree, then you can challenge me,' rather than hiding behind the vagaries created by this executive club.

It is time that Australia joined the ranks of so many other democracies and gave the right to vote on whether the parliament should go to war to the actual parliament itself so that the parliament and its members can be held responsible for the decision that they make, so that the Australian people can hold each and every one of them accountable at the ballot box for the decisions they decide to make. If they lie, as they have lied, they can be challenged by their electorates and voted out of office.

We live in the 21st century. The challenges of this century are the challenges of climate change. They are the challenges of public health. They are the challenges of ensuring that every human being has access to education, access to health care, access to a roof over their head. They are very different to the challenges of previous times. Yet we see in this place both sides participating in the escalation of tensions, creating a reality in our region where the coming of conflict is more likely. Australia and the Australian community must always work to de-escalate these tensions and, above all, prevent those in positions of power putting Australian people at risk because a war suits their political ends.

I know that many in the Labor Party support this reform but are worried about breaking the party line. I know that very many members of the Labor Party support this Greens reform and wish that their members of parliament would act in unity with them and demonstrate the courage that they so dearly wish to see. To those worried about the impact of breaking the party line this morning, I want to ask you a question. Do you really want to give Peter Dutton the unilateral power to declare war? Do you really think that is a good idea? We can fix this right here—here this morning—by supporting this Greens bill today and stop the risk of another illegal war just 20 years after we engaged in the last one.

In closing I want to say, because I can hear ticking over, in the minds of those who will now come to speak, a couple of myths that are fed to you from different PMs and deputy PMs' offices and the opposition leader's office. I can hear it right now. They're about to say, 'What about in the case of an urgent, unexpected escalation of tension where our waters might be incurred into?' Let me counter that one, before you even rattle it off from your speaking notes. Our bill makes specific provision for a circumstance in which our territorial waters were incurred into. In that situation no vote of the parliament would be required. This bill deals exclusively with the deployment of ADF personnel beyond our territorial waters. So before you give us that claptrap, I will put that on the record. Thank you.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020. In doing so, I begin by saying that the tone that the mover of this bill brings to this debate diminishes the Senate and our ability to have a really robust, meaningful, important discussion about matters of national security and national defence. The way that members of this place are spoken to and spoken about in relation to this should be above party politics. I am going to use my time in this chamber to speak in an appropriate tone for the level of debate required for this important matter. The tone coming from that end of the chamber diminishes the debate itself and diminishes the mover of this bill.

I want to begin my contribution to this debate, as I'm sure others in the chamber would do, by acknowledging all the Australian Defence Force members who are currently serving overseas and to also acknowledge their families, who have probably spent many nights without their loved ones and hope to see them come home safe and sound. And I acknowledge that nobody in this chamber or in this parliament would seek to send a member of the Australian Defence Force into harm's way without justification, without advice, without the rigour of questions being asked as required. I think we can all acknowledge that respectfully—that we care about these men and women, that they play an incredibly important role in our country and in the defence of our country and that we owe a debt of gratitude to every member of the Defence Force who is deployed overseas currently and who has been deployed overseas in the past. I just want to acknowledge those men and women today.

I have a few issues with this bill and this proposal. I think it's fair to say that the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 is a bill that has had many iterations. Since 1985, I think it was, there's been some form of this bill being pushed through debate by members of the Greens or the Democrats. It's something that is discussed from time to time in this place. We've had many parliamentary inquiries, and there is a parliamentary inquiry on foot at the moment about this very issue. So, discussing this is something that I think all parliamentarians take very seriously, as well as looking at it again and again in the context of the geopolitical circumstances that we find ourselves in. We go back and we have a look and consider this with thought, with care. But this is a bill that is not supported by the government, and there are many reasons for that.

I want to address one of the underlying premises in this bill, and it goes back to the tone of the debate. There seems to be this underlying premise that the decisions that are made by the executive in relation to the deployment of the Defence Force are made in secret, or that there's no accountability to the parliament—that there's some sort of covert decision-making that we don't talk to the public about. But that's not true. We know that decisions sometimes do need to be made quickly, in the interests of the safety of members of the Australian Defence Force and the safety of others overseas. But I'm on many parliamentary committees in relation to defence, and I know that members of Defence diligently come to parliament and sit in front of estimates for hours and hours on end, answering questions. They are called before many inquiries and committees to provide briefings. They provide private briefings to parliamentarians on matters that we need to understand in our roles. And they are accountable to the executive, and the executive is accountable to the Australian people. We know that. I want to dismiss any idea that there is no accountability for the Defence Force or for the executive regarding the decisions that are made and to note that these decisions are ultimately made publicly.

I also acknowledge that on the occasions when there is a change in posture and when deployments do occur—and we saw that in the last term of parliament around the evacuation of people from Afghanistan—I think it's fair to say, whether it's the former government or whether it's our government, that the executive really does try to communicate that as urgently as possible to the Australian public and that they do speak to the media about that so that they can be asked questions. But sometimes there are some sensitivities about making that news public before troops are in a safe position. I just want to put that on the record—that I think the former government made that information public at an appropriate time, when the advice was given to them and when it was safe to do that. That's because the nature of deployment, the nature of sending people into harm's way, the nature of sending people into so-called emergency exits, is usually in unforeseen circumstances or where things need to be dealt with quickly. It's very clear that we need to make sure that the Defence Force has the urgency and the flexibility and the opportunity to take these necessary steps. I think that this bill would prevent that from happening.

There are also a number of holes in this bill. As the previous speaker alluded to, there's been some sort of attempt to capture this idea of emergency situations, obviously trying to pre-empt a discussion about the Defence Force needing to be agile and effective. But I was reading the bill this morning. It has a few holes. There is no definition of 'emergency exits'. There is a pretty loose term of what an emergency exit would be. I'd be concerned about that. There's no definition of what it means to be required to serve beyond territorial limits and what that could include. And what was concerning to me was that the process of requiring parliament to sit after a proclamation is made through the bill would require information to be made public, possibly in a window that doesn't serve the purposes of the actual emergency exit.

These are technical terms, but I have done my homework—I've read the bill and I've really considered this in the context of how this would take effect or how it would practically be provided. There are some things that have not been thought through about how this would operate. There's been an attempt to try to say that there's no reason why this bill shouldn't be supported. Well, there are plenty of reasons. There are plenty of holes in this bill.

I'm also concerned about one of the subsections in this bill which requires that the minister come back to the parliament every month or at the start of every month of a sitting and provide information that includes the number of people deployed. That's information that we might not necessarily want our enemies to understand at that particular time. I think there is certainly an argument that the Minister for Defence at the time, or the Prime Minister in particular, should be asked genuine questions, but I think across the chamber we are respectful that some information at some times needs to be dealt with sensitively. There is no accounting for that in this bill.

These are certainly just some of the things I picked up on a first reading. There have been a lot of parliamentary inquiries into previous bills of this nature that have picked up similar issues around unforeseen circumstances. That's because we're dealing with a bill that is about a political agenda of a political party. I know that's something that the Greens might not want to hear, and I'm sure they will be very precious about that, but the truth is that this is something that I know many people in the public have long memories about. They remember previous deployments and how they may or may not have been treated. The Greens political party is seeking to campaign on this issue. Campaigning on the deployment of Defence Force personnel is something that I think is pretty distasteful but this is something that the Greens political party is pushing as a political agenda.

I did want to keep the tone of my contribution pretty respectful, but I don't think there is a more self-indulgent, self-righteous, self-interested group in this Senate chamber, who should be so far away from national security decisions it is not funny. These are people who should never, ever be involved in making national security decisions, and they should never, ever be involved in having some sort of balancing power that decides what we do in the defence of our country. That is a pretty broad explanation, but, to make it very clear, this Senate at times has different compositions, and I know that we are subject to the composition of this Senate to pass legislation. Every form of government is. What I would not want to see is a situation where the Greens prevent action being taken because of a political purpose, because of a campaign and in order to seem to hold the executive to account. There are matters where that should happen and does happen, no matter who is sitting on the government benches. There is a purpose to the crossbench, and we respect the crossbench and we respect the composition of the Senate. But what I do not want to see is a situation where we have troops about to be deployed to an emergency situation or to a situation that involves putting people in harm's way and that decision is held up because of the self-interested political purposes of the Greens political party. They should be far removed from national security matters.

I think the Australian public would agree with that, and they do. The Greens certainly are not a party of government and they certainly are not a party that takes these issues seriously enough to be part of the decision-making process. They are not members of certain committees in this parliament for very good reason, and that's because only parties of government, I think it's fair to say, take the responsibility of national security seriously in a non-partisan way. We know we have a job to do when we come here. No matter who is in the executive or who the Prime Minister is, we take that role seriously. The members at the end of the chamber in the Greens political party don't take those responsibilities seriously. They should not ever be involved in this decision-making process, and that is something that I'm very, very passionate about.

I have a lot of sympathy, certainly, for some of the community members who have personal experience with this and want to come and talk to us about the impacts that deployment has had, but what I would prefer the Senate to be doing is to be discussing matters relating to how we can improve the lives of veterans who have been deployed. I think everyone around this chamber would agree that that is something that we should be talking about and considering. The Albanese government is working really hard to reduce the DVA backlog. We are delivering 10 Veterans and Families Hubs, and we're also making sure that we have additional payments to veterans in the total and permanent incapacity cohort. This is the stuff that we should be talking about when it comes to deployment—how we treat the people who return from oversees with respect and with the care that they deserve.

What we shouldn't be doing as a Senate is entertaining the idea that anyone in the Greens political party has any interest in the national security of our country other than their own self-interest and their own political pointscoring. That's what this is about. They can shout and scream and call us names and talk in emotive terms and call people 'warmongers'. The stuff that they do around this is pretty distasteful. They can do all of that, but at the end of the day there's a reason why they're not a party of government—long may that be the case. I do thank other members of this chamber who are engaging in this debate in a respectful way, because our Australian Defence Force members deserve that respect.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a contribution relating to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020, which is before the Senate this morning. As many in this place have articulated, both the government and the opposition are certainly not supporting this bill.

Those who have been in and around or observing the Senate for an extended period of time would hardly be surprised to hear a Labor senator, either in opposition or in government, say such words in response to a bill of this nature. This is because the bill is hardly novel to this chamber. In fact, I think it's important that we have a bit of a look at the history. It's become almost a tradition for some to introduce such a bill in this chamber.

In many respects the bill that we have before us is a carbon copy of a bill that was introduced by former senator Colin Mason, of the Australian Democrats, back in 1985. It is a carbon copy of a bill that was introduced by Senator McLean, also of the Democrats, in 1998. It is the same bill that was brought to the chamber again in 1993, in 1996 and in 2003 by Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja and in 2008 by Senator Ludlam. So, it's certainly one that has made the rounds here in the Senate.

But the decision to send Australian Defence Force personnel into harm's way is not a decision that's ever taken lightly. As we heard in contributions from my colleague Senator Green and those opposite, we have had a privilege to share part of the ADF's program here in Parliament House through the parliamentary program that's been offered through the Department of Defence. I myself have seen firsthand the dedication of our service men and women of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force and the role they have in advancing our national interests and defending our sovereignty.

Just last year I travelled to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise over in Hawaii. That was consistent with previous interactions with our defence personnel. I was struck by the patriotism shown when I and other members of the parliamentary program were there. It's fair to say that the ADF personnel were very generous to the parliamentarians who participated in the exercise, and I want to thank them again for their time and dedication to Australia and its peoples. This dedication is admirable, and it should never be tested without deep consideration. Although I disagree with the provisions of the bill, when it comes to the rationale behind it I can't fault the moral conviction of those who seek to advance it. Here in parliament is certainly a place to have a debate about going to war. We heard from Senator Birmingham. I think it is fair that the parliament should have the debate. But the decision to send our troops to war should rest with the government of the day. Indeed, I appreciate the significance of the decision. Sending Australians to war is not a decision that is taken lightly, because of the appreciation we have for our ADF personnel.

But it's also important to note that in the Westminster system of government, as we have here in Australia, it is within the purview of the executive to make decisions regarding the commitment of forces to engagements, be they within our borders or overseas. It is that way because, the way our Constitution is written, the Governor-General, as a representative of His Majesty the King, Commander in Chief of the Australian Defence Force, is constitutionally vested with this responsibility. Such is the effect of section 61 of the Australian Constitution. Acting exclusively on the advice of the Prime Minister and other responsible ministers of the government, the Governor-General gives effect to the decisions of the government of the day, which is responsible to the parliament here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives and through our parliamentary processes, which obviously extend to the Australian people.

The Albanese government supports the continuation of current arrangements that govern the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to overseas engagements. We do so because it is essential that decisions of this type are able to be taken swiftly in response to international events. Indeed, we have seen in recent years, with open conflict once more on the European continent, how important it is that there exists a legal framework to support the sudden defence of the national interest in the manner that only the Australian Defence Force can. But whilst this may be so, it would be a mistake to suggest that there is not a role for the parliament at all. On this side of the chamber we also support the notion that such decisions of the executive should be made with the appropriate level of parliamentary and public scrutiny, and it is only with such transparency that the Australian community can have faith that these decisions are made on their behalf and in keeping with their expectations.

It is because of this commitment that the Australian Labor Party took to the election a policy to establish an inquiry into our armed-conflict decision-making.

This is a policy that has since been acted upon, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, making reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 28 September last year. I'm a member of this committee, and I note that it has so far received 113 submissions. I also note that the committee is yet to finalise its report to the parliament. It is disappointing that this bill has been brought on for debate before that report has been considered by or tabled in the parliament. I say 'disappointing' because, despite the many iterations of this bill and the frequency with which it appears before the chamber, it retains many, I think, deficiencies that have previously been identified through inquiries and debates. Because of the seriousness of the matters this bill would seek to amend, it is of the utmost importance that this legislation is considered deeply and comprehensively. When dealing with matters that will put Australian lives on the line, nothing should be left to chance. Successive committee inquiries have highlighted that the provisions of this and very similar earlier bills leave too much to chance and fail to address the concerns of unintended consequences arising should its passage through the parliament be allowed.

In its 2021 report on this bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade stated that it was left with concerns about how certain provisions of this bill would operate in practice and about unintended or unforeseen consequences. The report stated that concerns exist about the disclosure of classified or sensitive information that was necessary to inform decision-making would be made available for parliamentary debate without compromising Australia or its allies. It also stated that the bill would reduce flexibility needed in Australia's complex and uncertain strategic environment, and I think it's important to note that our environment has only become more complex and uncertain since this report was produced. Lastly and appropriately, the committee noted that the geographical limitations that the bill would place on parliamentary approval of overseas service did not account for the increasingly important conflict that occurs in space and cyberspace.

The ALP has always had concerns with previous iterations of this bill placing constraints on the government's capacity and its ability to respond to situations requiring urgency. The urgency required in these situations—situations that we of course hope never, never eventuate—is necessary for the function of committing Australian forces to engagements to sit within the executive. The reasons why the government opposes the bill are consistent with the reasons that Labor has opposed similar bills, dating right back to 1985, and that is another reason why it is disappointing that the bill has come before the chamber today, instead of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade having finalised its report. I would urge senators, once that report is tabled, to obviously have another discussion here in this place and make a contribution and get involved in the processes with that joint standing committee's inquiry.

The facts and arguments upon which the government has formed its view of this legislation have not changed—and I'm sure the same is true of other parties around the chamber—except noting that our strategic environment is even more fraught and uncertain than when we previously considered a similar bill. The bill does not address the concerns that have been raised with previous iterations; instead, it appears that proponents of the bill have just hoped that maybe the Senate has changed its mind, or the numbers have shifted. I really want to applaud the moral convictions of those who have put this bill—and Senator Steele-John is rightly very passionate about these issues of concern, and, quite frankly, this is the appropriate place to have these debates. But I really would urge Senator Steele-John to reconsider the consequences of maybe delaying decisions and the role the executive has while ensuring that there is still accountability in this place. The parliament has to have accountability for the executive, regardless of which side of politics is in power. I know there are many convictions that we probably share, but I really do feel that what is important here is ensuring that the government of the day has the right amount of information, has the right time and has the ability to support our men and women in uniform when the time comes.

But, before I conclude, I make the point too that it is important that we are mindful that the functions of the executive remain as they have been. No decision made by government is as consequential or important as the decision to deploy the Australian Defence Force into combat, but we must also consider that, in what may be a rapidly changing security situation, the decision to not deploy the ADF also has consequences, as does any delay in decisions being made. Any proposal to alter that decision-making process and who is responsible for it must be subject to scrutiny. This chamber has gone through that scrutiny process on bills many times before. Any changes to our national security arrangements must be deeply considered.

As our concerns about unforeseen legal and operational consequences of the bill have not been addressed, the government is not in a position to support this bill. But I do look forward to the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade being finalised after proper consideration of the 113 submissions before it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question is that the bill be read a second time.