Andrew Bartlett put forward a petition on the 10th of August, for the deployment of military assets overseas to be judged by parliament, not executive cabinet. The Hansard records the petition; Defence: Involvement in Overseas Conflict Legislation .

The petition;

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned calls on the members of the Senate to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval for Australian Involvement in Overseas conflict) Bill introduced by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Andrew Bartlett and the Democrats' Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja.

Presently, the Prime Minister, through a Cabinet decision and the authority of the Defence Act, has the power to send Australian troops to an overseas conflict without the support of the United Nations, the Australian Parliament or the Australian people.

The Howard Government has been the first Government in our history to go to war without majority Parliament support. It is time to take the decision to commit troops to overseas conflict out of the hands of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and place it with the Parliament.

I couldn't find the area of legislation which handed control to cabinet. Maybe this one; Sect 63 ;

General powers for defence purposes [see Note 3]

(1)The Governor-General may:

(f) Subject to the provisions of this Act do all matters and things deemed by him to be necessary or desirable for the efficient defence and protection of the Commonwealth or of any State.

Since the Executive Cabinet advises the Governor-General as the head of the Executive Council, as per the Australian Constitution, this would seem to be the section that gives the Prime Minister the legal ability to deploy Australian forces overseas.

But this poses a good question, should the Australian Senate have to agree first to Australia entering any conflict? In the United States the ability to declare war and the ability to execute warfare is separated, the former being Congress' responsibility and the latter the Presidents. Or should the Prime Minister have the sole authority in Parliament to enter Australia into a conflict?

cam
More reading: Tags
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • avocadia . # .
    That\'s a rhetorical question, right?:
  • cam . # .
    No, it is a serious question on my part: In classic seperation of powers doctrine, the Executive is the commander in chief. But in typical Westminster splatter style of roles, the Governor General is the commander in chief, but doesnt have the authority of the commander in chief.

    So it is the PM. Who should be restrained by the popular will from acting in an autocratic manner. A bicameral parliament represents the popular will. But, there needs to be the latitude for the Executive to react to emergencies. IIRC the President in the US is given 72 hours where they can act unilaterally and without Congressional consent if faced with a war emergency.

    But modern military campaigns dont declare war anymore. Iraq being a good example. It was a war. It was between nation-states. If any conflict should have been declared \"war\" it was between the US and Iraq (and by default Australia too).

    On the other hand, East Timor was not a war, and done under the guise of the UN, it avoided that.

    So I think the PM needs the authority to react to genuine emergencies, say 72 hours of activity that doesnt need parliamentary approval, but any significant undertaking, or use of force overseas requires Senate approval. I would also like to see Ratifiers and Sortitionists involved here too, which would make it even harder to usurp the popular will.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    The Australian Democrats Amendment: Link to amendment [pdf]. It amends Section 50C which currently states;

    Members of the Army may be required to serve either within or beyond the territorial limits of Australia.

    The Democrats amendment includes;

    Subject to subsection (3), members of the Defence Force may not be required to serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia except in accordance with a resolution agreed to by each House of the Parliament authorising the service.

    (3) The Governor-General may by proclamation declare that an emergency exists requiring the service beyond the territorial limits of Australia of members of the Defence Force, and such service may be required in accordance with such proclamation.

    (4) If the Parliament is not in session when a proclamation under subsection (3) is made, it shall be summoned to meet within 2 days after the making of the proclamation.

    (5) If the Parliament is in session when a proclamation under subsection (3) is made, but either House of the Parliament is adjourned for an indefinite period of time or for a period of time which will expire more than 2 days after the making of the proclamation, the Presiding Officer of that House within the meaning of the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965, or the person who is deemed to be the Presiding Officer of that House for the purpose of that Act, shall summon that House to meet within 2 days after the making of the proclamation, notwithstanding anything contained in the resolution of adjournment of that House.

    Looks reasonable to me, and not far different to what I reckoned would be a fair thing in a post above.

    I have also touched on the need for morality in the Defence Act in the past. Making the decision for the deployment of forces overseas accountable to the Senate is a good step in that direction IMO.

    cam