Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister’s statement on the Australian Defence Force commitment in southern Iraq sets out the arrangements for the Australian Defence Force personnel’s completion of the task that they had been set by the government in Al Muthanna province and also sets out the redeployment of Australian troops to Dhi Qar province, to be based at the coalition air base at Tallil and to be involved in the operational overwatch in south-east Iraq.

Yet again, the ADF personnel that have been involved in Al Muthanna province have shown their professionalism in setting out and completing the tasks given to them by government. The people involved have our gratitude and I wish success in the safe completion of the task they have been given to all the forces that are redeployed to south-east Iraq for involvement in this operational overwatch.

This is an opportunity for us to reflect upon Australia’s regrettable involvement in the Iraqi conflict. It was wrong from the outset and it is wrong now. In saying that, the opposition is not saying that the people that are being tasked to carry out the decisions of government should be criticised. It is very much the decision makers of executive government who need to be taken to task for their involvement as a so-called coalition of the willing in the disaster that has become the conflict in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s statement was very disappointing in that it lacked balance in the section on what is actually happening in Iraq at the moment. The Prime Minister indicated that he believed, on the basis of the energy production figures, the rehabilitation of schools, the training of teachers and other indicators, that things were resolving in a positive manner. But he did what ministers of the Howard government do on all occasions—fail to talk about the negative side. We do not hear a discussion about the horrendous civilian losses that have occurred over the five years.

A website regrettably called ‘Iraq body count’ today gives an estimate of between 40,000 and 44,500 civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq. If we go to other sites that have taken the time to collate these regrettable statistics about fatalities in Iraq, we see that, as of 6 August, military fatalities for the Iraq coalition totalled some 2,822. To get this into perspective, this site averages out the number of fatalities for the days of the conflict. Up to 6 August there had been 1,237 days. That makes 2.2 fatalities a day. In the first six days of this month of August, there were 15. That makes 1.88. This is not something that is waning. The figures indicate that this is not a picnic. There have been 2,592 casualties from the US defence force—what might be considered one of the most well equipped defence forces the globe can produce.

When we see this horrific loss—40,000 civilian casualties and nearly 3,000 military casualties—we have to ask why we do not have a fuller discussion of the issues surrounding the Iraq conflict. Today we see members of the opposition taking the opportunity that has been given through the Prime Minister being embarrassed into making a ministerial statement when he has redeployed troops in Iraq, but we see only opposition members taking the opportunity. I do not think that the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Kingsford Smith would mind me characterising them as being in the broad church, under the umbrella that is the Australian Labor Party, coming from different directions about matters to do with foreign policy and our engagement in world affairs. But, as the Main Committee can see from their contributions, there is one thing that the opposition is united on—that this was a conflict that we should not have involved ourselves in and that this is a conflict that we should get out of.

That gets us to a consideration of what we believe to be the alternative. The member for Melbourne Ports, with his particular interest in matters to do with the Middle East, talked about a number of political leaders in the region, especially in Iran—political leaders who have a dual role as religious leaders. His expose indicates the complexity of these matters. I am not standing here in the Main Committee suggesting that this is something that is easy. These are complex matters. But Australia should understand that, if it is to have a role in these affairs, it should be strategic about that commitment. The Australian Labor Party have indicated—it has been clearly enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley—that, if we believe that we can have some successful involvement in improving not only aspects of the Middle East and the surrounding region but also global affairs, our involvement in Afghanistan and our pursuit of terrorist organisations that have found their home in that country are the best way that we can use our resources.

As I said from the outset, one of the things that we do know is that the Australian defence forces can stand proud and tall about their professionalism and their effectiveness. That goes not only to the way that they carry out their duties in a military sense but also to their understanding of the environment—I include the cultural environment—where they engage and the fact that they do not go in as some superior force that is going to ram an outcome down on the people whom they are involved in protecting. That is unlike an impression I get as to the cultural context that other military forces, ones that we have a coalition with, think that they can go about their business with. But that perhaps is a debate for another day.

In the debate on the Australia-Japan legislation just before this present debate about the prime ministerial statement, in conclusion the foreign minister of course came in here and had the cheap shot that foreign policy within the Australian Labor Party has some leftist view that is anti-American. I think that he should be careful and that he should perhaps not only listen to the administration and what comes out of the west wing of the White House but also go up to Capitol Hill and listen to the views put by the US congress. What he has to understand is that, whilst the Howard government has fallen into line with the Bush administration, there are plenty of dissenting voices in the American political scene which are very akin to the Australian Labor Party’s position. To deny that that is happening is to misconstrue the successful relationship that Australia has had with the United States. The assumption that an administration that happens to be in power at the moment is the only singular unitary view of the United States is a great fallacy, and any Australian government that comes to that conclusion is not acting in Australia’s best interests.

I stand with many in the United States congress who say: ‘Why is the United States involved in Iraq? What is the exit strategy? What is the endplay? What is the conclusion?’ We have Condoleezza Rice touring around the world. She does not express where they think the goal is. Donald Rumsfeld says everything is peachy because there are 36,000 teachers being trained in Iraq. Of course that is a positive thing. But when the United States defence forces continue to lose something like two soldiers a day dying in action, when 40,000 civilians have lost their lives in Iraq and it continues, certainly there is a need to come to some greater conclusion.

So the opportunity that arose at the time that these troops were redeployed, at the time when the Japanese had decided that they could move on, has now been missed by the Australian government to decide that we could move on. Having lost that opportunity, perhaps the Australian government has to reassess what it is they believe they are actually doing in Iraq. Is there an end strategy? Is there an outcome that will satisfy the Howard government?

The Prime Minister quoted Tony Blair’s speech in the House earlier. I think it was this year or late last year. I have said, and gone on the record on a number of occasions saying this, that I would have proudly been in the minority of the British Labour caucus against Britain’s involvement in Iraq. But I have to say that I think that at least Tony Blair makes a greater effort and gives a better analysis to justify his reasons for being in Iraq than the present leadership of the Australian government does. Blair said:

Here are Iraqi ... Muslims saying clearly: democracy is as much our right as yours ... This struggle is our struggle.

We agree. What we really need to decide is: is the involvement of Australia and other coalition forces in Iraq a positive or a negative for the Iraqis to actually self-determine the way forward for themselves? There are plenty of people that say that the coalition forces are a distraction that causes the type of tumult that we see and does not allow for a peaceful settlement to the situation in Iraq. Blair went on when speaking to the House of Reps to say, ‘This is a time for the courage to see it through.’ See it through to where? Where is the end point? Have we really decided what the concluding moment of this conflict is?

Earlier on, as a critique of our involvement in Iraq, the Australian opposition—through its spokespersons, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Griffith as the shadow foreign minister—questioned whether there was a risk with the continuing involvement of the coalition of a fully fledged civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. The Australian Labor Party has been on record as posing that question as something that we need to analyse for our continuing involvement. And what do we see? We see the retiring British ambassador to Iraq raising a similar question, having come to a conclusion that yes, it is. It is time that the Australian government understood that it got us into Iraq for spurious reasons and should now decide how it is going to get us out. We believe that we are best placed if we go now. At the conclusion of this speech, I simply say to those in the Australian defence forces serving on behalf of their nation that I wish them well in their endeavours. (Time expired)

See this speech in context