Parliamentary preparations for War

Parliament prepares for American war with China by 4PR – Voice of the People

Legislative changes in preparation for war

(MUSIC Fades in and out)

ANDREW 1: Good morning listeners. My name’s Andrew and with me is Bevan Ramsden. We’re from IPAN, the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network. In today’s show we look at two recent legislative changes and show how they’re part of preparations for war. The first item is the report on the Inquiry into War Powers Reform and the second is the Consultation on Amendments to the Defence Act. Bevan, much public concern has been expressed about the government’s intention to spend 368 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money on the acquisition of nuclear- powered submarines.

This has generated a lot of community opposition because it comes at a time when there are pressing social needs such the dire shortage of affordable housing, addressing the impact of climate change, bringing the public health care system up to scratch and addressing the shortage of teachers for our public schools. However, this very justifiable community outcry may have overshadowed other less newsworthy but no less serious preparations for war.Bevan, what are the legislative changes either enacted or under consideration which appear to be part of these war preparations?

BEVAN 1: The first item is the report of the government inquiry into war powers reform. This inquiry was the result of intensive campaigning by Australians for War Powers Reform, a community organization which primarily wants the decision as to whether Australia goes to war to be decided by Parliament and not by the Prime Minister and the National Security Cabinet as is now the case.

The report from this Inquiry has been released and not unexpectedly it supports maintenance of the status quo, even though the vast majority of submissions were in favour of Parliament having control over the crucial matter of Australia going to war.

ANDREW 2: Was there anything positive in the report?

BEVAN 2: Only that the Executive should, after the decision is made to go to war, facilitate a parliamentary debate on the matter, report to Parliament and at least once a year initiate a debate about progress of the war.

ANDREW 3: I understand that it did raise some concern about the legality of using the Defence Act as the authority under which the decision to go to war is made.

BEVAN 3: Yes, the Report proposed that the role of the Governor General as Commander in Chief under section 68 of the Constitution be restored as the authority for sending the ADF to war.The Committee recommended that the Governor- General ‘be utilised, particularly in relation to conflicts that are not supported by a resolution by the United Nations Security Council, or an invitation of a sovereign nation”. Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) commented that this is most alarming because wars without U.N. approval are illegal under international law, so this determination by the Inquiry is setting up the mechanism for Australia to engage in illegal wars. Alison Broinowski of AWPR comments:”What’s the non-sovereign nation? Obviously, Taiwan. And why will restoring the war power to the Governor-General do the trick? Because that’s in the Constitution, and indeed it’s how we entered World War I.” She continues: “So the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the ADF high command and the troops will all be off the war crimes hook, and they need only wait to be told by Washington when to go. The ICC is unlikely to investigate the Governor-General.”

(Music fades in and out)

ANDREW 4: The second item worthy of attention is the consultation on amendments to the defence act, because these also appear to be part of war preparations.

BEVAN 4: This consultation is divided into three sections, entitled Initiative 1, 2 and 3. Initiative 1 refers to the‘full range of military activities’. Initiative 2 is called ‘seamless interoperability with international allies’ and Initiative 3 is called ‘security of military capabilities’. In each case they are seeking to amend the defence act to supposedly make improvements in these three areas. The consultation document is couched in military jargon which is difficult for ordinary people to understand and we are thus very indebted to the military historian Dr Albert Palazzo for helping us unravel the implications of this document.

ANDREW 5: Initiative 1 appears to be seeking amendments which will enable the ADF to conduct operations against state or non-state actors below the threshold of war, referred to as “grey-zone” operations. This would enable the A.D.F to conduct lethal operations including sabotage and assassinations where war is not declared.

BEVAN 5: In addition,the consultation brief refers to the A.D.F being allowed to “train as we fight”. This could well mean, according to Dr Palazzo, giving the A.D.F relief from state and territory health and safety legislation, environmental regulations, indigenous people’s rights, safety regulations in regard to transport or storage of radio-active materials and gun laws including the ban oncarrying arms in public.

ANDREW 6: Initiative 2 in the defence act amendment brief relates to interoperability with foreign forces. Regarding this Dr Palazzo says that‘You are probably aware that part of AUKUS is to make the A.D.F more interoperable with the U.S on the joint level. The goal is to make the A.D.F so integrated with U.S forces that there will be hardly a difference between the ability of an Australian force element to act and the U.S to command a U.S force to act.’ He further said that: ‘They may also be seeking amendments to make life easier for allies to act in Australia and from Australia. Rightnow the Australian government would need to approve a request from the U.S to conduct a bombing mission that originated from R.A.A.F Darwin.’

ANDREW 7: Dr Palazzo also commented on Initiative 3 of the defence act amendments brief, headed “Security of military capabilities”. He said that: ‘Defence is already protected by a number of laws that prevent citizens from entering bases, for example. This initiative seems to want to strengthen the protections…the additional amendments they are looking for may be ones that will allow the government to prevent the release of information – such as through Freedom Of Information.’

BEVAN 7: Dr Palazzo also said:‘The part on proactive identification of security threats is particularly disturbing as it would likely impede the right to protest and could see files opened on Australian citizens who are deemed national security threats. It also seems aimed at protecting defence partners which would include foreign corporations.’

(Music Fades in and out)

ANDREW 8:The possible amendments and the motivation for them as exposed by Dr Palazzo are particularly disturbing. Bevan, what has IPAN said about this? Has it made a submission to this Consultation?

BEVAN 8: IPAN has indeed made a submission.The main points are as follows, and I quote:

• The Defence Act be amended to confine the ADF to defence of Australian territory including its approach waters up to and including the 200 nautical mile exclusion zone around the continent.
• The only exception to 1 (a) being the ADF supporting actions initiated and sanctioned by the United Nations and with the approval of the Australian Parliament.
• The Defence Act be amended to ban the ADF from using or storing nuclear weapons or supporting any foreign power using nuclear weapons.

ANDREW 9: IPAN’s submission also expressed opposition to the Defence Act being amended in such a way as to override or weaken state and territory legislation and regulations relating to health and safety of workers and residents, environmental protection, indigenous people’s rights, safety regulations in regard to transport or storage of radio-active materials and gun laws including the banning the carrying of arms in public.

BEVAN 9: IPAN expressed opposition to Defence Act amendments designed to provide interoperability with foreign forces, seamless or otherwise. Such interoperability undermines sovereign control of the A.D.F and gives foreign forces greater freedom to operate in and from Australian territory in conducting  hostile military actions which are not in the interests of the Australian people, do not have permission of the Australian parliament and may be against countries with whom Australia is not at war.

 IPAN’s submission also said that: ‘Amendments to the Defence Act shall not permit a foreign power to store or transit nuclear weapons on or through Australian territory or conduct an attack employing nuclear weapons from Australian territory.’

ANDREW 10: In its submission, IPAN calls for an amendment to the Defence Act to prevent foreign military bases in Australia or joint military bases such as Pine Gap from supporting a nuclear war. This would include closure of the Ground Relay Station at Pine Gap and a ban on foreign forces accessing the Harold E Holt submarine communications station at North-West Cape in Western Australia.

BEVAN 10 : Regarding Initiative 3, headed ‘Security of military installations’, IPAN’s submission  says: ‘IPAN strongly opposes amendments to the Defence Act or other laws which would prevent, impede or make illegal, political protest against foreign or domestic military assets or military activities which support wars which are not in the interests of the Australian people; such political protests are guaranteed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Australian Government has signed and ratified.’

ANDREW 11: That’s all we have time for today, although we will return to this topic in future programs. This attempt to change the Defence Act so as to remove legislative impediments to the use of Australian territory as a forward base for the U.S war machine could, if it goes ahead, have dire and unpredictable consequences for the Australian people. As usual we welcome listener’s comments and suggestions, which can be emailed to peacecentre@cicd.org.au; that is peacecentre@cicd.org.au. Good morning and thanks for listening.

(Music Fades in and out)