True to its word, the Albanese government has announced an inquiry into War Powers. Alison Broinowski looks at the politics and the players, and the chances of reform so the decision to take Australians to war requires a vote of Parliament, rather than a one-man-call.
After a decade of public efforts to get politicians to concentrate on changing how Australia goes to war, the Albanese government has now responded by taking the first step.
The announcement on September 30 of a parliamentary inquiry reflects the concerns of groups across Australia that we might slide into another disastrous conflict – this time in our region. Those welcoming it are 83% of Australians who want Parliament to vote before we go to war. Many see this opportunity for reform as potentially putting Australia ahead of similar democracies.
While many nations have constitutions requiring democratic scrutiny of decisions for war, Australia is not among them. Nor are Canada or New Zealand. The UK has conventions, and British efforts to legislate the war powers have failed. In the US, efforts to reform of the War Powers Act of 1973 have repeatedly been defeated.
West Australian Labor MP Josh Wilson wants research done by the parliamentary library to update inquiry members on how other democracies respond to governments’ war proposals.
Yes, no, and no comment
Leading proponents of Australia’s inquiry are Wilson and the ALP’s Julian Hill, who will chair it. They stress that the outcome will be a matter of compromise, reflecting the composition of the Defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
But the fact that it has been referred to the committee by Defence Minister Richard Marles is encouraging for those who fear that Australia could slide into another war as disastrous as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Neither Marles nor Prime Minister Albanese has publicly supported reform of the war powers. Nor have many of their party colleagues, who either defer to their views or have no comment. Among Labor politicians who support reform, many are not members of the subcommittee conducting the inquiry.
MWM began surveying politicians last year about their response to the question ‘‘Should the PM have the sole call to take Australians to war?’’. Almost all the Greens responded ‘No’, and all the Nationals ‘Yes’. Many others, ALP and Liberals alike, had no comment, or echoed their defence spokespeople or ministers. Others again favoured reform, but with certain conditions, mainly concerned with what Australia would do in an emergency.
Interestingly, three of the four MPs who had actually served favoured reform.
War Powers: four perspectives from politicians who have served
But since the election, numerous respondents to the MWM survey are no longer in Parliament, and we now have a new cohort of Independents, most of whom campaigned on platforms of accountability and climate change, rather than talking about foreign affairs and defence.
Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) points to the connection between these two important issues and military operations, which are highly polluting and unaccountable.
Independents Andrew Wilkie and Zali Steggall understand the need to subject war-making to the same democratic process. So does Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, who has twice proposed reform legislation.<
None of them are members of the Defence subcommittee which will conduct the inquiry. The inquiry includes a balance of party affiliations and opinions. The ALP chair has as his deputy Andrew Wallace from the LNP. Members vehemently opposed to reform of the war powers, each for their own reasons, include Liberal senators Jim Molan and David Van. Others responded to MWM’s surveys and AWPR’s inquiries with no comment. Some have not responded to requests for interviews.
Two contrasting responses stand out. Labor MP Alicia Payne said clearly that she wanted a parliamentary inquiry and supported the government’s initiative. ‘‘I recognise that in some instances the executive government may need to make such decisions as a matter of urgency, however, such urgent decisions should still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.’’ Payne is not a member of the subcommittee.
On the other hand, Senator Ralph Babet, of the United Australia Party, told MWM that ‘‘A clear distinction should be made between war powers and matters of defence … A multi-partisan view of hope exists for future global peace and stability, within the halls of Parliament’’. Babet is a member of the subcommittee, which may hear from him what this means.
Not all the members of the subcommittee have made their views about war powers reform known to MWM or AWPR. A rough assessment shows that a majority didn’t reply or had no comment.
The proceedings promise to be interesting. But the results are critically important, influencing as they will Australia’s position in March 2023.
That’s when the 18-month consultation process ends for AUKUS, the Defence Strategic Review reports, and the 20th anniversary of Australia’s invasion of Iraq occurs. Reform of the war powers has never been more urgently needed.
This means war: how Australia’s main allies take the biggest step a nation can take
Dr Alison Broinowski AM is Acting President of Australians for War Powers Reform. She joined the Australian Foreign Service in 1963, lived in Japan for a total of six years, and for shorter periods in Burma, Iran, the Philippines, Jordan, South Korea, the United States of America and Mexico, working alternately as an author and Australian diplomat.