Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the prime ministerial statement today on the new role for our troops in Iraq. The statement went into some detail regarding background but very little detail regarding actual operations. The guts of the operations, however, are in a passage where the Prime Minister said:

Should situations develop that are beyond the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to resolve, the Iraqi government may call upon the coalition to provide them with backup.

Indeed, on Thursday of last week, 15 June, the Minister For Defence said in the Main Committee this role was akin to the civil call-out that our defence forces might be required to provide to a civilian community in Australia.

When we are looking at our troops performing a role akin to the civil call-out function that we have legislated for in Australia, the issues involved are very complex and dangerous for them, particularly from the point of view of accountability and, from a legal perspective, the personal risks they may face. For instance, in Australia our legislation is quite clear that our troops can only perform tasks as requested by the civilian policing authorities. If that is the regime in Iraq, then there are concerns. Clearly, in Australia, there are professionally trained police officers whom we will respect. In Iraq, we have seen, as the Leader of the Opposition said, security forces wracked by their own involvement in sectarian violence. The extent to which our defence forces should be required to undertake tasks as directed by such authorities is clearly a real concern.

Similarly, in Australia, there is an elaborate mechanism—complex arrangements—for authorisation before a request is made for civil call-out, involving the Minister For Defence, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. The government needs to explain what is going to be the trigger in Iraq. Will it be the interior minister, the minister for defence or some lower order officer? How can we be sure that that lower order officer may not be an officer who is involved in a particular militia that is itself associated with sectarian violence? Authorisation is a crucial issue.

Again, the legislation in Australia provides that the overall command of a potential scene where a civil call-out may be required rests with the commissioner of police of the state. If we are putting our troops in a situation where the overall direction of the scene is with the Iraqi community, with the Iraqi policing authorities, what does it mean from the point of view of risks that may be faced by our troops or, indeed, motivations that may exist on the part of the Iraqi security forces which our troops do not want to be associated with? These issues are complex and must be clarified.

Another important issue is the detention and delivery of someone who may be breaking the law or who may be perceived to be breaking the law. In Australia there is a careful regime in place where our troops detain for the minimum period a person before they hand over that person to the civilian policing authorities to effect arrest and detention. Again, these issues are not clarified. Are we potentially putting our troops in a position where they may be handing over someone to torture or, indeed, to capital punishment? These situations have not been addressed at all. Nor have the requirements for when reasonable force can be used or when lethal force is authorised. Again, these are crucial issues which have not been explained by the Prime Minister. Nor have provisions for when opening fire is engaged in.

The bottom line is that, if these matters are not clarified from the point of view of our troops, as indicated in an Irish case of Crown v Clegg, our troops could be exposed to criminal sanction. These issues have not been addressed. The government has thrown our troops in, again looking for something to do in Iraq, but they may well have exposed our troops to risk. (Time expired)