Alison Broinowski | War powers reform needs to stay on Anthony Albanese government agenda

Like a bookie, he kept a list of the ALP's election promises on the wall, ticking them off as he paid the punters. That Old Parliament House-style accountability fell into desuetude with our last government.

A decade in opposition may do the Coalition good, just as it did for the ALP.

Australians were agreeably surprised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese set a fast pace on the favourite, Promises Kept.

Out of the starting gate early, he moved on the Uluru Voice, climate change, and a federal ICAC, clearing sports rorts and pork barrel projects in his stride.

He didn't let even bipartisan foreign policy get in the way of Australia withdrawing the opportunistic move, proposed by Scott Morrison in 2018 on the eve of a by-election, of our Tel Aviv embassy to Jerusalem.

Bipartisanship in defence policy is not a scratching, however. The opposition bet at a day's notice on the Coalition's AUKUS proposal, whose benefits are unknown. Most current MPs will be out of office before they have to face its enormous costs.

The cost-benefit calculus should also apply to the Quad, inspired by the late and - in Japan at least - dubiously lamented Abe Shinzo.

For Australia to join the US in containing China by force in Taiwan or the South China Sea is clearly a fool's errand. Even American war-gaming shows it would fail. Australia would make itself a proxy target for Chinese retaliation over Taiwan. The logic follows Sun Tzu: know your enemy, and don't waste your forces (or horses) on wars or races you can't win.

So the punters were delighted when Labor kept its promise for an inquiry into how Australia goes to war, in its first term in government. Leading proponents of reform, reflecting widespread public opinion, are the ALP's Julian Hill, who chairs the defence sub-committee conducting the inquiry, and fellow MP Josh Wilson.

They stress that the outcome will be a matter of compromise. Rather than have the inquiry fail, however, they may be forced to accept some watering down of the outcome.

That appears to be the intention of Defence Minister Richard Marles, who referred the inquiry to the committee.

His statements in opposition were even more bellicose than those of Peter Dutton. Marles wrote to the chair of the joint-standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade, Shayne Neumann, setting up the inquiry, and saying that Parliament has an "important role for public discussion and scrutiny," when the ADF is deployed into hostilities abroad.

But he also advised Mr Neumann that the current powers - which permit governments to commit Australia to war without parliamentary authorisation - should "not be disturbed".

Neither Marles nor Albanese has publicly supported reform of the war powers. Nor have about half of their party colleagues, who either defer to their views or make no commitment.

Of Labor politicians who support reform, many are not members of the defence sub-committee which is conducting the inquiry.

Of the other members, all those from the LNP are opposed to change or have responded to inquiries with no comment.

READ MORE:

Michael West Media's request was met with this reply from senator Ralph Babet, of the UAP, whose spokesperson mystifyingly said: "The senator believes a clear distinction should be made between war powers and matters of defence. It is apparent to us, as a newly elected party, that a multi partisan view of hope exists for future global peace and stability, within the halls of Parliament."

Former defence minister Linda Reynolds' comment was more comprehensible, but less democratic.

She replied stating her strong opinion that "Parliament should play no role in declaring war and in the engagement and deployment of defence personnel."

If it did, that could "risk the lives of Australian personnel, and compromise the safety and security of any proposed operation."

LNP MP Andrew Wallace, who is deputy chair of the sub-committee, told Michael West Media that the current system has "stood us in good stead for many years," evidently forgetting that we have not won a war for decades. The executive, he added, "can't 'be hamstrung by Parliament".

Governments, Marles correctly said, haven't ever been obliged to explain to the Parliament their decisions to deploy the ADF into hostilities abroad.

The inquiry, he added, has provided an important opportunity for scrutiny by the Parliament of such decisions.

But that's the point. Scrutiny of decisions already taken may be interesting, but it doesn't affect them. Even a debate, as occurred in 2003 over the Iraq deployment, changes nothing.

Only a vote, preferably in both houses, can do that. Only that can keep Australia out of a losing war in our region, or make our politicians responsible for the outcome.

The best way to avert it is by an amendment to section eight of the Defence Act, before Australia again goes to war.