Bill Debate · Second Reading

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020; Second Reading

Senate · Wednesday 25 March 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a Greens bill requiring parliamentary approval before deploying the Australian Defence Force into overseas warlike actions. The government and opposition opposed the measure, arguing that executive decision-making is essential for national security and that existing scrutiny mechanisms are sufficient. Greens senators and an independent crossbencher supported the bill, citing public demand for democratic oversight and criticizing recent deployments to the Middle East as undemocratic and based on false premises. The debate highlighted deep divisions over the balance between executive power and parliamentary accountability in foreign policy.

Outcome

The bill was debated but the transcript does not state the final vote result.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens

Shoebridge moved the second reading, arguing that the bill would require both houses of parliament to vote before troops are sent into warlike actions. Shoebridge cited a 2023 poll indicating that 90 per cent of Australians support such reform and criticized the current system for allowing a small executive group to decide on deployments without democratic input. Shoebridge contended that recent decisions to deploy personnel to the Middle East were made without proper scrutiny and were based on misleading information regarding Iran's nuclear program. Shoebridge emphasized that other democracies require parliamentary approval for war and that the bill would mandate regular reporting on the status and legality of deployments.

Government response

Murray Watt (Minister for the Environment and Water) ALP QLD

Watt stated that the government would not support the bill, asserting that defending Australia's interests is the executive's highest priority. Watt noted that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that deployment powers remain with the National Security Committee of cabinet. Watt argued that existing arrangements allow for decisive action while maintaining parliamentary accountability through debate and election outcomes. Watt emphasized the need for a balance between responsive national security decision-making and effective parliamentary examination.

Opposition response

Michaelia Cash (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Shadow Attorney-General) Liberal WA

Cash opposed the bill on behalf of the coalition, arguing that it would hinder the government's ability to respond quickly to complex and asymmetric threats. Cash contended that the Westminster system already provides democratic legitimacy through the House of Representatives and that parliamentary approval would introduce dangerous delays and uncertainty. Cash criticized the Greens for prioritizing ideology over national security and argued that allies require certainty in Australia's support. Cash maintained that the executive must retain the power to make timely decisions in the national interest.

Larissa Waters (QLD) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Waters argued that sending troops to war is one of the most significant political decisions and should not be left to unchecked executive power. Waters highlighted that previous conflicts in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were disasters resulting from decisions made without parliamentary approval. Waters criticized the government for supporting what she described as an illegal war in Iran based on false premises regarding nuclear capabilities. Waters emphasized that the bill would provide necessary oversight and align with the views of the majority of Australians.
Fatima Payman (WA) (Australia's Voice) Australia's Voice support

Payman commended the bill as a commonsense measure requiring both houses to approve deployments into warlike situations. Payman explained that the legislation includes emergency provisions allowing the Prime Minister to act in genuine crises, provided they report to parliament within 24 hours and recall it if necessary. Payman argued that the bill ensures transparency regarding the legal basis, duration, and objectives of deployments. Payman stated that routine non-warlike activities are excluded, focusing scrutiny on situations where lives are at risk.
Jordon Steele-John (WA) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Steele-John argued that politicians must justify requests for citizens to go to war through parliamentary debate rather than relying on blind trust. Steele-John criticized the major parties for resisting democratic scrutiny and for sending Australians into conflicts based on deception. Steele-John contended that the current government failed to establish an independent foreign policy and instead deepened ties with the United States. Steele-John called for a reassessment of Australia's relationship with the US and emphasized the need for parliamentary votes before deployments.
Steph Hodgins-May (VIC) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Hodgins-May criticized the lack of parliamentary input in recent decisions to deploy personnel and equipment to the Middle East. Hodgins-May argued that deploying surveillance and targeting capabilities constitutes participation in war, regardless of government terminology. Hodgins-May highlighted that closed-door decisions benefit the defence and fossil fuel industries while ordinary Australians bear the costs. Hodgins-May stated that the bill would force accountability and align with the 90 per cent of Australians who support war powers reform.
Peter Whish-Wilson (TAS) (Australian Greens) Greens support

Whish-Wilson noted the long history of attempts to introduce war powers reform, dating back to the Australian Democrats in 1985. Whish-Wilson acknowledged the work of previous senators and community groups in advocating for democratic input into military deployments. Whish-Wilson argued that Australians feel helpless regarding rising costs and global instability driven by powerful interests. Whish-Wilson stated that passing the bill would place the responsibility for war decisions on the conscience of elected representatives.

Opened by

David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens)

Greens

Bill

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020

Speeches

8 speeches, 5 other contributors

Topics

Defence & AUKUS Foreign Affairs Middle East

Debate International Relations: Australia and Israel Take Note Debate, 20 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: Foreign Affairs, Middle East
Debate International Relations: Australia and Israel Take Note Debate, 10 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Foreign Affairs, Middle East
Question Time House Question Time 20 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: Defence & AUKUS, Foreign Affairs
Question Time House Question Time 15 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Defence & AUKUS, Foreign Affairs

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.