View from Canberra: The how of going to war | ADM Jun 2010

But hardly anyone seems to have noticed and there was negligible media coverage.

A Special Correspondent | Canberra

This related to a bill introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam which would have required parliamentary approval of any overseas military service.

This was hardly novel - a similar bill was introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Colin Mason in April 1985.

As is the nature of private member's bills, this went precisely nowhere and the same bill was introduced again by the Australian Democrats again in 1988, returning to the notice paper in 1993 and 1996.

With the Iraq war looming, the Dems tried yet again in March 2003 with this again going nowhere.

Shortly before vanishing from the Senate forever, the Democrats introduced the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 and it was this exact same bill adopted by the Greens in September 2008 and referred to the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee for inquiry.

It duly reported in February this year.

This report gave the thumbs down for a variety of technical reasons, not because the essential principle was found in any way wanting.

The persistence of the proponents of this measure over the last two decades suggest it will come again, perhaps next time Australia was embarking on a contentious military deployment.

Governments of both persuasions routinely state there is no more profound decision than sending the troops off to war, so, on the face of it, who could object to a parliament fully debating such a measure.

On the other side, the fact that this has been pushed by the left of politics, suggests their fundamental agenda would be to use such a debate to mobilise public opposition and if possible thwart a mission of which they didn't approve.

Under longstanding Westminster convention, the executive - the prime minister and cabinet - retains the discretion to commit troops to any foreign operation and that's the position the government maintains, insisting there are abundant opportunities for canvassing of particular decisions, not limited to question time and estimates hearings.

Oppositions and minor parties, they say, have shown themselves quite capable of bringing on discussion of any issue that takes their fancy.

So why not go the whole hog and formalise debate on going to war?

Other than the argument for keeping things the way they are, there appeared to be little dissent on the principle that debate is good.

Where the bill fell down was in the fine detail of how this would work in practice and there was an abundance of issues.

First off, would a debate of such gravitas be held in the House of Representatives or the Senate or both or in a joint sitting and how long would be a fair thing?

Those who witnessed the Senate debate on the government's emissions trading scheme last year marvelled at the brazen filibustering of its opponents, working on the concept that he longer the delay, the more chance it would all fall over, which was what happened.

Opponents of any particular military mission could be expected to do no less.

Think of parliament recalled in mid-January with debate running a fortnight as the troops sit around waiting.

A fully informed debate could require access to intelligence material, something the government would be unwilling to do.

The US would surely take a dim view of its signals intelligence and satellite imagery passed around the House.

The same applies to details of pre-deployment movements such as patrol locations of our submarines.

The fundamental objections relate to the continuum of overseas deployments, which can range from a single soldier attaching to a US unit through to a full task group, with much in between.

The various peace groups who wholeheartedly backed the Greens bill found no problems here but significant reservations were expressed by former senior military officers with actual experience of foreign deployments.

Some missions, such as Iraq in 2003, develop over an extended period of months but others, such as the redeployment into East Timor in February 2008 in response to the attempted assassination of President Jose Ramos-Horta, arise at extremely short notice.

The Australian Association for Maritime Affairs noted that naval operations can escalate then de-escalate in a matter of hours, as occurred with recent counter-piracy missions off Africa.

The bill included provisions for an emergency declaration to allow a short notice mission to proceed.

But how about where an existing peacekeeping mission suddenly escalates into open hostilities.

Would Australian troops sit on their hands until this was debated back home?

And if parliament disapproved, would they then have to disengage?

The Netherlands military still carries the stigma of Srebrenica where an ill-prepared force with an uncertain mandate abandoned 8,000 Bosnian refugees to Serbian genocide.

In the end, the committee chairman Labor Senator Mark Bishop concluded the bill left too many critical questions unanswered and would have unforeseen and unfortunate consequences.

But a dissenting Greens report indicates this isn't the end at all and their time will come.

"As other democracies have evolved, subjecting their war powers top democratic process has become routine," Senator Ludlum noted.

But if finally enacted way down the track, could such a measure be used to railroad Australia into embarking on an unwise foreign adventure?

It seems unlikely but your correspondent harks back to the grim days of early September 1999 when street protesters were loudly demanding immediate military intervention to halt militia depredations in East Timor.

A cynical colleague says he still looks back in wonder at these vocal demands for war, which surely would have resulted had Australia unilaterally intervened on what was still Indonesia territory.

Curiously, the very same demographic urging instant action in East Timor was at the forefront of demands that we stay the heck out of Iraq and presumably are now numbered among those advocating parliamentary debate on going to war.

Maybe it just depends on which war.