Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on the statement made earlier today by the Prime Minister with respect to the latest deployment to Iraq. The first point I want to make very clear—and it has been said by other speakers from the opposition—is that we support our troops. We believe they do a great job. We believe they have been exemplary performers overseas in a range of peacekeeping and other activities. We are always impressed by their professionalism and they have our full support.

However, we do not support this deployment. We do not support maintaining our position in Iraq. We did not learn a lot today from the Prime Minister about what is happening with this deployment. We are still dealing with scant detail about what is going to occur. We know some things, though. We know that the area the troops are being sent to is a more dangerous area than where our troops currently are. We know the coalition airbase in Tallil, near Nasiriyah. It is about 100 kilometres south-east of their current location at Camp Smitty, just outside the provincial capital city of Samawah. We know that in the Nasiriyah area there have been a number of serious accidents and incidents in the last few years. In March 2003, Nasiriyah was the scene of savage fighting during the initial invasion. In April 2004 there were clashes during the Malidi uprising. The Italians have had 31 troops killed there since 2003, including 19 in a single suicide bombing in 2003. A tragic ambush in March 2003 saw 11 US soldiers killed in the city.

As recently as 5 June 2006, an Italian soldier was killed and four others wounded, one seriously, in a bomb attack in north Nasiriyah. Dr Nelson himself, the Minister for Defence, said on 20 June 2006:

This has the potential to be more dangerous for our soldiers in the sense that the terrorists and the counter-insurgents, who are totally opposed to Iraqi people having the same democratic rights as Australians and other people in the world, might possibly want to target Al Muthanna as being the first province to go to Iraqi control.

Neil James, the Australian Defence Association executive director, said, again on 20 June:

What’s going to make it more risky is that the area they have been operating in is almost 100 per cent Shiite and mostly from the one faction, so it has been relatively benign tactically. The places they are going to are going to be more dangerous.

An issue of concern was raised by the shadow defence minister yesterday in the House and related to the issue of helicopter backup. In 2005 the then Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, was quoted as saying:

The helicopter support that we will have from the British is principally medical evacuation. That type of function is not principally an attack capability.

The government’s rationale for deploying fewer numbers to the Al Muthanna task group, which comprises 450 personnel, than those in the Dutch contingent of 1,500, whom they were replacing, related to helicopter support. No helicopter support was being provided. Australia had a narrower role than the broad security responsibilities of the Dutch. So there are questions about what is going to be provided in the way of helicopter support. We understand the additional rationale that with the handover the Iraqis are taking over a greater security role, but what do we know about the resources and capability they will have to provide that support? There is no doubt that the medical support provided through helicopters for evacuation is essential, but we do not know the detail of what is happening.

As other speakers have also said, let us not forget that the mission keeps moving. First it was about finding weapons of mass destruction—that was the issue. Then it was about regime change. Then it was about protecting the Japanese engineers. Now with the Japanese withdrawing there is the somewhat nebulous role of security oversight. It has never been properly articulated; it keeps changing. Why is that? The answer is: it is about politics.

The Prime Minister says we cannot bring our troops back to our region. Maybe he should tell that to some of the other countries which have made decisions in the national interest to remove troops: New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands and the Ukraine. Tell that to the Philippines and Thailand and to half a dozen other countries that have withdrawn: Honduras, Nicaragua, Iceland, Tonga, Moldova and the Dominican Republic. Tell that to the major nations that are reducing their commitment or have a timetable for withdrawal, for example Poland, Italy, Norway, South Korea and Bulgaria.

There is no doubt that this is an ongoing quagmire. It is an area of grave concern. We have to look to the future and what we will do in this area. In some respects issues have been played out in US domestic politics. We know that the Defence minister has said that there may be a timetable for withdrawal later in the year. They have to come clean on the detail. This is a deployment which is incredibly dangerous and there are real issues about our forces. I stress once again: the Labor Party supports our forces, and we have tremendous confidence in their capacity to do the job, but let us not forget that at the end of the day we have to look to the future of our own region to ensure that it is safe and secure. That should be the priority of this government.