Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Hansard source

It is great to be able to speak on this motion on the International Day of Democracy and I applaud the member for Fremantle for bringing forward the motion. Democracy is something that Australians often take for granted, I feel. But, like the member for Fremantle, I have seen a lot of the alternatives and know that they are very ugly. I note also the presence in the chamber this morning of the member for Fadden, and I know that a lot of what I have to say he will no doubt have reflected upon from his time in Bougainville.

It is the question of the promotion and the challenges of democracy referred to in the motion that I would like to talk to this morning. It certainly is inspiring and sobering to see the way that the people of Timor-Leste and Iraq responded to the opportunity to vote for the first time in their lives, at great risk to their lives. That is often the case in these postconflict environments. It often also requires the exertion of great physical effort and patience—standing for long hours in queues, for example. And if you are in Iraq, of course, that brings with it the risk of being subject to suicide bombers and the like—something that we cannot really imagine as we participate in our electoral events here in Australia.

One thing that I have learned in the course of those experiences, in those environments where they are struggling through to achieve the level of democracy that we have here, is that elections do not equate to democracy. Often what we have seen in the past is that we conduct these elections and, as far as the international community is concerned, that is a tick in the box and a job well done—mission accomplished. But bitter experience I think has taught us that establishing sustainable and meaningful democracy is much harder than that. I think we have learned that close to home in Timor-Leste. Once those elections were conducted, the hard work began from that point—the hard work of both effectively growing the institutions and the agencies of democracy and the culture of democracy. Quite often we do not recognise that critical factor—the need to build a culture of democracy. So it is not just about frameworks and institutions at the end of the day. I have quite often seen attempts to impose Western solutions, elaborate solutions, on these environments which just do not take locally. In many ways it is akin to having an organ transplant. That organ will be rejected unless it is appropriately introduced and grafted on effectively in a way that will gel with the local culture. And that is really the test here: to evolve those institutions in that culture.

The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq also demonstrate that there are various levels at which democracy must occur. Certainly my own experience in Somalia emphasised this as well, that you need to build democracy at various levels. Provincial governance is quite often as important as—or, in some cases, more important than—a national-level democracy. The reason that is important is that often, in postconflict environments, we need to come to something akin to federalised solutions because often the issue in these internal conflict situations is that we need to do more to ensure people are comfortable about the protection of their cultural identities and minorities are respected. Quite often in those environments there can be a tyranny in majority because the rights of minorities and even their physical safety are not respected by the majority. So often the best way to move through this and to achieve an effective result is a federalist approach.

There are many elements in growing a culture of democracy, as I have discovered. It is not just about building institutions at the federal and local level but also about establishing public security so that responsible leadership has the confidence to move forward. All of the aspects of the rule of law need to be in place as well, such as the justice system and prisons. Transitional justice issues to do with truth and reconciliation processes or retributive justice are just as important to achieving a level of calm within society for democracy to flourish. Human rights bodies and independent watchdogs can also be part of that process, as well as good governance measures, which are quite often necessary to prevent corruption and distortion of the political process. We have seen that to be a major threat in places like Papua New Guinea. We need to be able to follow through, on the delivery of an election, to grow agencies and mentor them through to maturity. Quite often, that means putting in place inspector-general type mechanisms and other types of good governance and auditing approaches.

One thing that I thought was an effective concept in Iraq—but not particularly well implemented, because of the rush to do so—was the idea of graduating the various ministries. Instead of a straight handover of sovereignty to Iraqi governance, each department had to meet certain criteria to hand over and achieve autonomy. I think that is a good conceptual way of flagging that we need to sustain efforts in the transition to democracy by identifying points of weakness in the governance that exists and ensuring that we support and mentor those involved through to an effective outcome. What we now see in Iraq illustrates many such cases.

I was delighted to see overnight the announcement that the Iraqi parliament has moved through the provisions that are required to be in place for the conduct of the provincial elections. This was a key piece of the puzzle for the ongoing improvement of the situation there. We are now hoping to see provincial elections occur in Iraq towards the end of January, at the earliest, next year. This has been long delayed, and there have been a lot of issues that have caused that delay. They relate to the fact that we have seen quite a demographic shift in Iraq. Some have claimed that it is ethnic cleansing, but certainly what we have seen is shifts in population gravitating towards a more communal identity. One of the benefits of having provincial and federal approaches and solutions is that you can accommodate minority and cultural identity issues.

The last time there was an attempt to move forward with the provincial elections, it was defeated by the veto of the President, Jalal Talabani, but we are very confident that it will move completely through that parliamentary process, as the Kurdish legislators are in support of this new provision and have accepted the compromise that was brokered by the United Nations. I would like to salute the role that the United Nations has played all along in Iraq in helping with the political transition process and conducting elections in that country. Certainly, I was distressed to see how much time and opportunity were lost in the early days in Iraq by a failure to take the best advantage of what the UN has to offer and to capitalise on its strengths.

The interesting thing with regard to the provincial legislation that is going forward and the resolution of continuing issues is that a committee will be formed to look at property disputes and power-sharing concerns so that the remaining three provinces, which are quarantined from the process that will occur at the end of January, will be able to move forward as well. That relates to the issues of the Kurdish autonomous regions and the status of Kirkuk. Another aspect of that is the equitable management and distribution of resources, and of course the oil factor is the big one there. Quite often, in creating an effective democracy in postconflict environments, part of the issue is the equitable division of access to resources and the way funding from resources gets distributed in a community.

Interestingly, a new law bans political parties from using religious authorities, mosques and government institutions in their campaigns. That certainly is to be welcomed, along with the introduction of a 25 per cent quota of women on councils as part of the election process, which is a reflection of the constitutional provision for the national parliament. That continuation in the promotion of the status of women in Iraq is certainly to be welcomed. I salute the progress that has been made there and hope that it will move that country forward.

When we talk about different levels of government and democracy, it brings me back to our situation here in Australia. The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia highlighted some of the challenges in local governance issues, even in this country. I note there have been comments about the decline in the ability of local governments to deliver for communities. Some people have even claimed that the status has reached a failed state level. I think that is probably taking it too far but, on the current trajectory, governance in rural and regional Australia is not sustainable without the sorts of measures announced by the Prime Minister in building a new federal relationship with our local government. I think that is critically essential. It was welcomed very rapturously by all my local councils during the campaigns last year, and it is good to see we are delivering on that.

I also highlight in relation to the building blocks of democracy that the Rudd Labor government is now stepping forward to see if it can deliver a more effective approach to that in those postconflict environments by the establishment of the new Asia-Pacific Civil Military Centre of Excellence. This centre will aim to harness all the elements of national power to target those buildings blocks of democracy at the same time as delivering effective public security to enable those building blocks to flourish and grow. We see this centre as harmonising our approach in agencies and helping them target fault lines in our regional neighbours that can be addressed before they develop to the stage where some intervention is necessary. An aim of this centre is to facilitate harmonisation of our cooperation programs and our planning in situations where agencies have to intervene. A lot of research will be harnessed and promoted through the development of this centre. We will be bringing private industry and NGOs into that process, as well as members of various government agencies. We will be networking with many of the think tanks that help us to facilitate that strategic thinking. We also intend to network with other institutions internationally that are pursuing the same objectives, such as the Post Conflict Reconstruction Unit in the UK—which was recently renamed as the Stabilisation Unit—the Stabilisation and Reconstruction Task Force in Canada, the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilisation in the United States, and also with Europe and what has been going on with their Civilian Headline Goal Program, to create deployable civilian capabilities to address these deficiencies and issues.

The centre will also help develop our integrated doctrine, training and exercise opportunities for our agency and external actors to enable cooperation to be more effective on the ground in these situations. It will also help us to have dialogue within the region to build an understanding of the need for this sort of approach and to enable us to work closely with our regional neighbours when that is required such as we have, for example, in East Timor and in the Solomon Islands.

We have discovered that there is a need for the deployable civilian expertise which the Europeans are looking at, and we are examining ways to be able to deliver that. I have commissioned a study within our Reserve capacity in the ADF to map the actual civilian skills that exist there so that we can draw on those skills. There are many people who have the economic, organisational, electoral, legal and economic skills that can help us tackle those issues in the short term as we move towards transition to Indigenous capabilities.

I hope that, with the contribution of the centre, all of our agencies will become known for two particular qualities: flexibility and imagination. This is what the contemporary security environment really requires of us. The challenge for us is the ability to be flexible in the capability that we bring to the table, in our strategic analysis and in our ability to think outside the square. It is the responsibility of those of us who have the opportunity to promote the cause of democracy through every possible means, as it is by no means free from threat or guaranteed, even to us in this country, without eternal vigilance. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context