Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief comments in response to the Prime Minister's statement on Iraq. In 2003 I opposed intervention in Iraq and Australia's involvement in the conflict. I did not believe Australia's involvement to be justified at that time, either morally or legally. I was not in this place then. I voiced my position, as many thousands of Australians did, by taking to the streets. I stand by that position. I think history has vindicated it and there are echoes obviously of 2003 in the tragedy of the circumstances we are debating today.

In the present circumstances, my view is different to that which I took in 2003. The moral case to act today is viscerally compelling. The horrors that have been brought home to us through social media, and indeed the mainstream media, demonstrate the scale of this humanitarian catastrophe, as I think the member for Lyons referred to it. But I am concerned about questions of legality. These are not small questions when we go to issues of military force. They raise some profound issues for all of us in this place. Obviously, when I think about my opposition to the 2003 conflict in Iraq, I also think about conflicts where Western democracies failed to act or failed to act as they ought to have done—I think of Kosovo; I think of Rwanda—and I do note that it is clear that there are grave consequences that can attach to failing to act as well as from interventions.

Further to that, in accepting the grave consequences that may flow from inaction, we cannot divorce the implications of our actions from their consequences and in Iraq, in the Middle East more generally, history does not offer us much encouragement. Of course, the use of military force, recourse to military force, can never be a step lightly taken.

It is of concern to me that this action is not presently the subject of a United Nations Security Council resolution. I would prefer it was so. But this is not a barrier to the action Australia has taken and, in the circumstances, it cannot be one. I am comforted by the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. I am also comforted and, indeed, encouraged by the words of former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans as set out in The Australianyesterday, going to the responsibility-to-protect doctrine:

… no question arises of any breach of international law even in the absence of express UN Security Council authorisation.

He said of the intervention:

Its objective is explicitly humanitarian, to protect civilian populations immediately at risk of genocide or other mass atrocity crimes from the marauding Islamic State militant forces, who in their march across Iraq have already perpetrated atrocities unrivalled in their savagery. And—

importantly, I think, he says:

there is a reasonable prospect that it will be successful in meeting at least this immediate aim.

This immediate aim is a vital aim, and our response, I believe, is proportionate and appropriate. The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Tanya Plibersek, set out the principles that Labor will have regard to in this matter far more eloquently and far more effectively than I can, and I associate myself with all of her remarks, particularly those that touched on the broader regional dynamics and the tragedies that also exist in Syria which create some ongoing problems in terms of both our capacity for humanitarian relief and our present limited capacity for further protective action.

Apart from associating myself with Deputy Leader of the Opposition's remarks, there are four other matters I wish to briefly touch on—firstly, the importance of being able to debate this issue. This is a profound responsibility for all of us as legislators, and I am not convinced, as many in this place are, that it is clearly always the case that the executive government's prerogative should not be the subject of full parliamentary debate. Now is not the time, I believe, to have that debate; but it should not be, in my view, taken as read that we cannot engage in these fundamental questions about Australia's moral responsibilities as an international citizen when it comes to the ultimate exercise of military power.

Secondly, I am thinking, as I am sure all of us are, of the service men and women we are asking to undertake this important and dangerous work in our name and in the name of humanity. My thoughts, like those of all of us, are with those brave men and women.

Thirdly, I represent a community which contains a large number of people of Iraqi origin. I was deeply affected when a delegation came to see me the week before last to talk about their concerns—concerns for their former homeland but also concerns relating to the community here and the prospect of radicalisation. That was a meeting that will stay with me a long time. I will do all I can to stand up for those decent people in that community and to allow them to feel confidence in the democratic institutions of Australian society as well as our concern for their homeland.

Fourthly, more generally, I am concerned about how we speak to and with the Islamic communities across Australia, including the ones in my electorate beyond the Iraqis. It was my very great privilege to be in the chamber to hear the defence of multiculturalism in Australia offered by my friend the member for Chifley, and I associate myself also with his remarks. But I think there is a broader challenge for all of us to stand up for the true principles of Islam, a wonderful and peaceful religion, and not allow there to be any confusion between that faith and the atrocities we are seeing in Syria and Iraq at the moment.

The doctrine of the responsibility to protect puts me in a position where I am comfortable with the actions undertaken by the Australian government and supported by Labor in opposition. At the moment, it is a responsibility to protect. I hope that, should Australia's actions change, there will be an opportunity for all of us as parliamentarians to debate that responsibly, reasonably and in the interests of the international community, particularly those affected by such horrific circumstances.

See this speech in context