The Prime Minister has announced that we are going to war with the Islamic State. He hasn't actually declared war but effectively that is what has happened. Declarations of war are an old-fashioned thing to do. But Australia is committing ten planes and 600 personnel as part of a multi-national strike force. The decision was taken after meetings first of the National Security Committee of Cabinet and then of the whole cabinet. It came after a request from the United States Secretary of Defence to the Australian Defence Minister.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This is a serious step. We know from recent history that such commitments can escalate through what is called mission creep. One relatively small step can be followed in time by slow but steady increases. In the end the commitment becomes much larger. So the decision should not be taken lightly by Australians. But it is taken and announced by executive action and without much formal political discussion. There is plenty of informal discussion but that is not the same thing.
What is striking about the process is the stark contrast between going to war and passing an annual budget, between executive action and passing government legislation through parliament. This has been graphically illustrated by recent parliamentary struggles over the government's budget.
The politics is different. The government announces that it is going to war or into combat and the opposition totally agrees and undoubtedly feels under pressure to give unqualified approval. On the other hand the government announces that the economy is in crisis and the opposition not only disagrees but feels confident about its disagreement.
The process is different too. In the case of going to war the government can act quickly and with impunity. In the case of domestic issues the government can only act after formal consultation and negotiation with the parliament, especially with the Senate because governments generally control the numbers in the House of Representatives.
In the latter parliament is central. In the former parliament doesn't even have to be sitting or recalled if it is not already sitting.
The Australian way of doing things is not unusual. Executive government generally effectively controls war-making around the world. The need to do things at speed is one issue as is the constitutional centrality of government in matters of national security. But there is a case for greater involvement by parliament for reasons both of substance and symbolism.
There is little or no chance that the involvement of parliament would change the decision to be part of a war against the Islamic State. There is bipartisan major party support for the decision. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has made that clear, with only the slightest qualification about the need to avoid upwardly creeping commitments. That ensures passage of any vote through parliament and the defeat of any dissenting voice. That dissent would be led by the Greens.
There is huge political pressure within the major parties against any internal dissent. Only the Labor Member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, has distanced herself from the decision. This is then portrayed unflatteringly in media commentary as a crack in the opposition's support for the government.
The case for parliamentary involvement through the recall of parliament, despite the expense and inconvenience of doing so, stems from a consideration of the multiple roles of parliament. Too often parliament is discussed in terms of legislative power rather than its other roles. These other roles include non-voting ways of keeping governments responsible, including question time and parliamentary committees, as well as its representative role as a people's assembly meeting to bring the people's viewpoints into public deliberations.
So it is not just a question of whether the government has the substantive support of the parliament. It certainly has that support. But it is also a question of whether the nation's formal representative body marks the occasion of a serious national commitment of troops into a combat situation.
That is why there is a strong case for the immediate recall of parliament whenever a nation goes to war. You have to draw the line somewhere and there will be minor interventions where this is not justified. But given the history of the Iraq and Afghan wars this intervention should not be classified as minor. The commitment is already substantial and the plan looks open-ended.
A recall of parliament would achieve several worthwhile things without delaying action.
First, it would formally recognise the seriousness of the step being taken. It would be the occasion of major speeches by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, supported by the Nationals leader, the Defence and Foreign Affairs Ministers and their shadow ministers in the opposition. They may not say anything more than they have been saying informally to the media but they would say it comprehensively and for the parliamentary record. That record is important for posterity and when we look back in years to come to reflect on where this step eventually has taken us.
Secondly, it would be an opportunity to put alternative points of view. At the moment those views would be put by Melissa Parke in the House of Representatives and by Christine Milne, Greens Leader, and her colleagues in the Senate. But others may come forward given the formal opportunity to do so. They would be representing alternative views which undoubtedly exist in the community and should be heard.
Thirdly, a recall would focus community attention. As a nation we should forget our daily routines for a moment and concentrate our attention whenever a momentous decision such as going into combat is taken on our behalf.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University
