Should the parliament decide if Australia goes to war?

As the war in Iran heads into its second month, the conflict has escalated rapidly. The effects are being felt around the world, and there is no clear sign of it ending.

So far, the Australian government has said it will not commit troops to the conflict^[1].

But if it were to take such a step in the future, what would that involve?

Australian involvement in the conflict

Iran responded to US-Israeli airstrikes by lashing out against its regional neighbours in the Gulf^[2]. Gulf states requested military assistance^[3] to defend against Iranian attacks, and the Albanese government agreed^[4] to provide air-to-air missiles, a surveillance aircraft, and 85 supporting personnel.

The government has carefully emphasised the defensive character of its commitment, in line with^[5] the right to collective self-defence outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Still, legal experts have pointed out^[6] that the distinction between defensive and offensive operations means little. Australia is involved in the conflict, even if it does not partake in offensive operations against Iran.

Read more: Australia is sending an aircraft and personnel to the Middle East. Does this mean we are entering the war?^[7]

But if we do go to war, how does it happen?

If the Australian government decides to commit troops to the war, it will not need to consult parliament before doing so.

Australia’s war powers provisions are quite detailed^[8]. But, simply put, there are two key documents that determine who exercises war powers in Australia.

The first is the Constitution, which gives war powers to the governor-general as commander-in-chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

The second is the Defence Act 1903^[9], which gives the defence minister the power to direct the ADF.

In both, war powers are the prerogative of the executive, the branch of government that puts the law into action^[10]. The executive comprises the king (who is represented by the governor-general), the prime minister, and their ministers.

In practice, the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC) specifically exercises^[11] this power. The NSC deals with the “highest-priority, highest-risk and most strategic national security matters of the day^[12]”.

NSC decisions do not need to be endorsed by the broader Cabinet^[13], and the executive is not required^[14] to consult parliament first. It must, however, inform parliament and facilitate debate as early as possible.

The process is similar in other Commonwealth nations, including New Zealand and Canada^[15].

The situation in the United States is different. The US constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Essentially, Congress initiates war, and the president directs the armed forces once authorised by Congress.

In practice, many presidents have deployed troops without Congress’ approval, including in the Korean and Vietnam Wars^[16]. This led Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution in 1973^[17] to curb presidential war powers. Presidents continued to commit troops without congressional approval^[18], and Congress has proven less willing or able to assert authority in these situations.

Responding to the current conflict, Congress debated^[19] President Donald Trump’s authority to attack Iran, but efforts by Democrats and some Republicans failed^[20], as they had in the aftermath of recent US operations in Venezuela^[21].

Proposals for reform in Australia

Since 1985, numerous bills^[22] have been introduced in the Senate. All sought to limit executive war powers by requiring parliamentary approval to deploy the ADF in war or warlike operations. None succeeded.

While Defence Minister Richard Marles ordered^[23] a parliamentary inquiry^[24] into war powers in 2022, he told the committee the decision to commit troops to war was “within the prerogative powers of the executive^[25]” and should remain so. Ultimately, the inquiry affirmed the executive authority of prime minister and Cabinet to decide on matters of war. It also rejected the introduction of a parliamentary veto.

This has not stopped the Greens from again calling^[26] for war powers reform amid the Iran conflict.

The Greens want the execution of war powers to be contingent on a vote in both houses of parliament – and they say public opinion is on their side. So, what do Australians think about the issue?

What do Australians think?

A national poll^[27] by Essential Research in April 2023 found 90% of those surveyed thought parliamentary approval should be required to go to war. This is the figure the Greens have cited^[28] in their current bid for reform.

Last year, the War Studies Research Group^[29] asked Australians what they thought about war powers as part of a larger national survey on public attitudes towards the ADF^[30]. The survey involved 1,500 people and was conducted from late February to early March 2025 as part of our work to measure public attitudes towards the ADF.

Overall, 76% of respondents agreed the government should always be required to consult parliament before committing the ADF to war. Of those, 37% strongly agreed, while less than 5% disagreed.

Notably, the survey indicated a remarkable consensus across Australia. 70% or more of almost all demographic cohorts supported parliamentary involvement. This included gender, age, location, income, education, military background, and nationality.

Majority agreement also held across political preference lines, with highest approval levels among respondents who voted Labor (81%) and Independent (82%).

Where to from here?

Despite the Greens’ efforts and broad public support for war powers reform, the major parties have favoured the status quo and will continue to do so.

As Labor Senator Raffaele Ciccone informed^[31] the Senate last week:

The Albanese government supports the continuation of current arrangements that govern the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to overseas engagements.

While the government remains committed^[32] to keeping the parliament updated on matters of war, it is unlikely war powers reform will occur.

References

1. ^{^} will not commit troops to the conflict (www.abc.net.au)
2. ^{^} lashing out against its regional neighbours in the Gulf (theconversation.com)
3. ^{^} requested military assistance (www.abc.net.au)
4. ^{^} agreed (www.minister.defence.gov.au)
5. ^{^} in line with (www.foreignminister.gov.au)
6. ^{^} pointed out (www.abc.net.au)
7. ^{^} Australia is sending an aircraft and personnel to the Middle East. Does this mean we are entering the war? (theconversation.com)
8. ^{^} detailed (theconversation.com)
9. ^{^} Defence Act 1903 (www.legislation.gov.au)
10. ^{^} the law into action (peo.gov.au)
11. ^{^} exercises (www.pmc.gov.au)
12. ^{^} highest-priority, highest-risk and most strategic national security matters of the day (www.directory.gov.au)
13. ^{^} do not need to be endorsed by the broader Cabinet (www.directory.gov.au)
14. ^{^} is not required (www.pmc.gov.au)
15. ^{^} New Zealand and Canada (www3.parliament.nz)
16. ^{^} including in the Korean and Vietnam Wars (www.nixonlibrary.gov)
17. ^{^} pass the War Powers Resolution in 1973 (theconversation.com)
18. ^{^} continued to commit troops without congressional approval (www.businessinsider.com)
19. ^{^} debated (www.pbs.org)
20. ^{^} efforts by Democrats and some Republicans failed (www.bbc.com)
21. ^{^} recent US operations in Venezuela (www.npr.org)
22. ^{^} numerous bills (www.aph.gov.au)
23. ^{^} ordered (www.theguardian.com)
24. ^{^} parliamentary inquiry (www.aph.gov.au)
25. ^{^} within the prerogative powers of the executive (www.theguardian.com)
26. ^{^} calling (greens.org.au)
27. ^{^} national poll (essentialreport.com.au)
28. ^{^} cited (greens.org.au)
29. ^{^} War Studies Research Group (www.unsw.edu.au)
30. ^{^} larger national survey on public attitudes towards the ADF (www.unsw.edu.au)
31. ^{^} informed (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)
32. ^{^} committed (www.aspistrategist.org.au)