Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House supports the Australian Government’s policy of:

(1)

remaining unequivocally committed to the Iraqi people’s aspirations to be a democratic and free society, with the continuing presence of Australian Defence Force personnel; and

(2)

standing completely resolute against non-state actors determined to commit (directly or indirectly) acts of terror and violence against free peoples and free societies.

It is common language today that 11 September 2001 changed the world in a way that few could have imagined on that day when two civilian aircraft flew into the World Trade Centre towers in New York and another aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. It was on that day that yet another aircraft crashed in Stony Creek township, Pennsylvania, killing hundreds of innocent passengers. It was on that flight, we understand, that the passengers signed their names into the books of courage in their country with their amazing attempt to overpower the hijackers and prevent potential catastrophic loss of life. So, on 11 September, the world mourned the loss of thousands of innocent lives in the United States—2,996, to be precise.

Since September 11, we have witnessed several other terrorist acts, killing more innocent people, from Bali to Madrid to London. This begs the question: what is it that drives men to commit such heinous acts of terror on their fellow mankind? The British Prime Minister expressed his thoughts very eloquently both in this parliament and elsewhere—the battlefronts in the Middle East. We in this country cannot fully understand it—perhaps we never will. One thing we can ask is whether we should accept this as part of the moral norms of our times, as part of evolution in the post-Cold War world or merely as part of the geopolitics of the 21st century. The Howard government says without hesitation and equivocation, ‘No, we should not accept this as acceptable international behaviour in the 21st century.’ Terror and terrorists have no place in the 21st century.

Since September 2001 Australia has been fighting the war against terror and since 2003 this has involved a direct military commitment in Iraq. Many still debate the original decision to go to Iraq. The opposition has accused this government and this Prime Minister of being poll driven. The decision to go to Iraq was extremely unpopular. It was the least poll driven decision that any government could have taken. Labor fails to understand this most elementary point—that governments govern in the national interest; they do not make decisions simply because they are popular.

Where no-one contested the evil nature of the Saddam Hussein regime—a regime that sanctioned mass murder, mass torture and mass rape—there is simply no contest on the fact that without the coalition of the willing invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be there today. That is beyond question. There has been much talk about the coalition of the willing withdrawing from Iraq. To my mind, this is simply not an option. To the mind of the Australian government, this is simply not an option.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are now advocating the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq of coalition forces. I reject that notion absolutely. It is a manifestly irresponsible policy call by the federal opposition. The immediate withdrawal of our 1,200 troops would send the wrong signal to all the stakeholders in this war against terror and indiscriminate violence. It would leave us guilty of the charge of weakness, cowardice and political opportunism at a time when we need to demonstrate all the qualities that make the Australian nation respected internationally. We need to demonstrate our courage, our strength and our fortitude. We need to demonstrate that all the gains Australian troops have achieved in the last three years would not be wasted and that a vacuum would not be created or filled by other forces of extremism and violence.

The most significant achievement is of course the fact that, despite the brutal threats from insurgents in Iraq, millions and millions of Iraqis have turned out in three nationwide elections since the war began and voted overwhelmingly in favour of democracy. Twelve million Iraqis turned out in the most recent election when Prime Minister al-Maliki was elected. For the record, in Australia there were 13.1 million voters as of 31 October 2006. The Iraqi people should be an inspiration to all of us in this country. How can they not be an inspiration to us in this country, where we take so many things for granted? But, if the United States and the coalition forces were to withdraw, terrorists worldwide would receive a huge morale and propaganda boost from such a withdrawal. It would embolden terrorists across the world, including in our own region. We must remember that Australians are a critical part of the coalition presence in Iraq. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion moved today by the member for Ryan shows just how arrogant this government has become. This motion calls for an open chequebook approach to the lives of Australian soldiers deployed to Iraq. This motion confirms that the Howard government will defend its ill-considered political position on Iraq to the last American soldier or the last Iraqi civilian. Given the way this civil war is raging, it is evident that it will indeed be the Iraqi civilians who will continue to pay the ultimate price of Sunni versus Shiah and Shiah versus Sunni with our forces getting caught in the bloody middle. According to a recent report by the United States Department of Defense, this horror, this bloodshed and this payback is occurring on a daily basis in an environment where some Iraqi politicians are condoning or maintaining support for violent means as a source of political leverage with an increasing number of death squads, including those formed from ‘rogue elements of the Iraq security forces’, where unprofessional and criminal behaviour is being attributed to certain units in the national police and where corruption, illegal activity and sectarian bias have obtained progress in developing security forces.

This motion today calls on us to continue to support this corruption and this sanctioned violence. Compare the stupidity of the words of this government motion, which claims that all is well in Iraq, with the wisdom, strength and courage of what was said by former SAS officer Peter Tinley just two days ago. On the weekend he called for the immediate withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq. He said that Iraq was a moral blunder and he condemned the Howard government for its handling of the war, yet here today we have a government motion which is full of self-congratulation and incredible stupidity. Major Tinley said on the weekend:

It was a cynical use of the Australian Defence Force by the Government. This war duped the Australian Defence Force and the Australian people in terms of thinking it was in some way legitimate.

Major Tinley did not sit in the safety of Parliament House in Canberra urging some other Australian to go and fight in a dirty, stinking, filthy war; he went where his government sent him, and during his military service at the sharp end he was decorated for his courage.

We are asked today from the safety and comfort of Parliament House to support this jackass motion put before us by the member for Ryan. We can do that or we can choose to listen to someone with the firsthand experience of Peter Tinley, who has immediate and intimate knowledge of how this war is being waged and who has 25 years of military service upon which to base his views. As a veteran, I choose to listen to and to support what Major Tinley advocates, and that is an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

The Australian people have indeed been duped over this war in Iraq. Our troops were sent there to find weapons of mass destruction which we were told existed but were never found and which many credible intelligence experts believe never existed. We were then told it was about regime change—it was about getting rid of Saddam. I have no problem with that, but if that is why we went there why were we not told that at the time and why did the government send inadequate force numbers for that task and the subsequent occupation? No wonder the Governor-General came out and criticised them just the other day.

We were then told it was a strike against terrorism, that our troops would be there for weeks and that it would be a short deployment. Then the troops were told they would be there until the job was done. They did the job in Al Muthanna, but did they bring them home? No, contrary to the promise to bring them home, they were redeployed. They are now seen to be an occupying force and are in the middle of a bloody, vengeful and unrelenting civil war, and the members opposite say, ‘Leave them there indefinitely.’

I congratulate Peter Tinley on his courage in speaking out. He is indeed a courageous Australian. I have no doubt that many other senior military leaders share his views, as do many ordinary mums and dads in the community, particularly those with sons and daughters involved in Iraq, sons and daughters about whom this government says, ‘Leave them there indefinitely.’

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the motion moved by the member for Ryan. I will start with a long-used quote: ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’ That is why, as a government, you need to make the tough decisions and the right decisions. Sometimes the public may not be behind you but you still have to do what is right for your country and the world.

Prior to participating in the war that toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, the Australian government made a commitment to do everything in its power to encourage the establishment of a representative government in postwar Iraq. As the end of 2006 draws near, we do not resile from this commitment. Unlike those on the other side of this chamber, I believe it is crucial that the Australian government remains unequivocally committed to the aspirations of the Iraqi people to a democratic and free society. What more would any country want?

On three occasions in 2005—in March, in October and again in December—Iraqis endured the most fearful intimidation to come out in their millions, even in the insurgent strongholds, to vote in favour of a democratic future. What is more fair, reasonable and right? Saddam Hussein, whose regime was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, has now been tried and sentenced by his own people. His sons were butchers. They would systematically rape women. If you were an Iraqi parent, you did not want your daughter to be in the Iraqi Olympic team. Why? Because they would have been sexually abused. This is the type of government Saddam Hussein had, and this is why it was so crucial that he be toppled.

These events represent to the world the shining emblem of the Iraqi people’s determination to move forward towards democracy, but Labor seems opposed to this. In this place on 19 October this year the Leader of the Opposition said of Labor’s alternative strategy for Australia’s future in Iraq that it involves three elements. The first is the unilateral withdrawal of Australian troops. I ask you: then what happens? The second is to provide Iraqis with aid and training. I totally concur with that and we have been doing that. The third is to put Australian troops in the region and our resources into practical measures. I would say we are doing that too.

In essence, Labor’s policy is nothing more than to unilaterally pull out Australian troops and hope for the best. But why? The Leader of the Opposition argues that coalition troops are a magnet for jihadists around the world who are destabilising Iraq and causing disputes between the Shiite and Sunni communities. He may be correct, but that does not mean that it is in Australia’s best interests or in the world’s best interests to withdraw. It is significant that in presenting Labor’s policy the Leader of the Opposition is careful to avoid the question of what effect an Australian withdrawal would have on the morale of the terrorists within Iraq and, more importantly, around the world. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition says nothing about what effect an Australian withdrawal would have on the United States and on other Western liberal democracies with whom Australia has so far stood shoulder to shoulder against terrorism. Labor has simply chosen to ignore these pivotal questions.

The Leader of the Opposition also believes that Australia should withdraw its troops because the coalition leadership in Iraq is a security blanket for the Iraqi civilian leadership. To advocate a unilateral withdrawal, paying no heed to whether the Iraqi civilian leadership is capable of managing without coalition support, is incredibly reckless and ill considered. Adopting Labor’s strategy would make Australia a mere proxy of our enemies. It would give great heart to the non-state actors from every corner of the globe, from Jerusalem to Jakarta, to recruit and strike Western interests.

Australia is a country that honours its commitments. No Australian government should unilaterally leave its allies to finish a job that they began together in good faith, especially when the basis for doing so is as precarious as that upon which the Labor Party’s policy rests. For those reasons I support the government’s position on Iraq, and I commend the member for Ryan’s motion to this House. I have heard the opposition members’ contributions, and I fully concur that our Australian troops are doing a fantastic job under trying circumstances. I congratulate our troops on their service to this country in the war against terrorism. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan’s motion comes in two parts. The opposition completely agrees with the second part of his motion—that the House stands resolute against those who commit acts of terror and violence—as, I am sure, every member of this House does. We on this side of the House have given consistent support to this government’s antiterrorism legislation, although we have raised concerns about some provisions of these bills when we thought it appropriate. There is a bipartisan consensus in this parliament on the need to combat terrorism. The second part of the honourable member’s motion does no more than reflect that.

The first part of the honourable member for Ryan’s motion is a different matter. It appears that he does not know that his motion has been overtaken by events in Iraq and in the United States. There has been a mid-term election in the United States, Member for Ryan, which can only be seen as a repudiation by the American electorate of the American policy in Iraq. That verdict has been confirmed by the resignations of Secretary Rumsfeld, the architect of that policy, and by no less a person than Senator Warner, a Republican chairman of the joint foreign affairs committee over there—something you should get on board with.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports will address his remarks through the chair.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I believe the US went into Iraq with good intentions and while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime was certainly welcomed—as were his trial and ultimate sentence—it is obvious that the strategy of trying to turn Iraq into a Western style democracy, and using Iraq as a role model for the rest of the Middle East, has not succeeded. Iraq is a society deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines. The tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, pitting Shiah against Sunni and Kurd against Arab, have unfortunately been all too successful. The members for Ryan and La Trobe should understand that there has been a dramatic turn in American foreign policy—you do not want to be here preaching for the war in Iraq after the American Republican administration has already turned.

I do not pretend to know how the situation in Iraq will play out. Possibly a de facto partition into Shiah, Sunni and Kurdish states along the lines of the settlement in Bosnia under the Dayton Accord is the best option available, but that is a matter for the Iraqi people to determine. Although Mr Baker’s Iraqi study group may recommend a temporary upscaling in deployment of American forces, there will be a phased withdrawal of United States forces. The Australian Labor Party’s attitudes are not a reflection on the competence or courage of the ADF, who have always carried out their tasks with great efficiency and skill, but a reflection on the political wisdom of the events that sent them to Iraq.

I will quote Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican and Bush loyalist, from yesterday’s Washington Post. You guys should be reading this. Senator Hagel said:

There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq.

The US and its allies cannot police Iraq indefinitely and cannot force the Iraqis to stay in a united Iraqi state if that is not what they want. Our role now should be confined to protecting our embassy, training Iraqi personnel, defending Iraq’s offshore oil assets, as they have asked us to, and helping to train Iraq’s own defence forces.

The most regrettable aspect of the Iraq operation has been that it has made it much more difficult for the United States and its allies to respond effectively to the challenges of North Korea and Iran. It is striking that, of the three states of President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’, Iraq was the only one that did not have weapons of mass destruction. What is now clear is that North Korea has nuclear weapons and that Iran is determined to get them as soon as possible. The political credibility of the Western alliance is so low that no effective response can be made to either of these challenges. This is a very dangerous situation. If we are to believe President Ahmadinejad, the theocratic regime in Tehran has every intention of using its nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and to hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam, the Shiite messiah—a completely irrational approach to politics but something that people in the world have to adjust to.

Those such as the member for Ryan need to reflect on the position that we have got ourselves into. There is a fratricidal civil war in Iraq, which we are unable to stop. We have greatly weakened the political credit of the Western alliance and we have allowed North Korea and Iran to press ahead with the development of weapons of mass destruction. We have also allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate. I do not think that this is much of a record to boast about.

I will conclude by saying that some of the statements of the President of Iran are truly frightening. The foreign minister of Iran has also said some things that should make people’s hair stand on end. Even the Iranian Chief Justice, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, praised the fasting people taking part in these rallies. He said:

The world arrogance [the US] ... today are shivering from Muslim vigilance and are on the threshold of annihilation.

That is the threat we should be looking at—what is being said in Iran in trying to adjust the situation in Iraq. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the motion moved by my good friend the member for Ryan relating to the government remaining committed to the Iraqi people and against terrorist groups through the international community. I remind the House of the recent events in Iraq, yet another example of why we must not cut and run from Iraq. Just last week Baghdad saw one of its bloodiest attacks on Sadr City, when Sunni insurgents coordinated the explosion of five car bombs, killing at least 202 people and injuring 252. Shiite border teams quickly retaliated by firing at the most important Sunni shrine in Baghdad and on two other Sunni neighbourhoods. This tragic loss of innocent life is evidence that the work to build a stable, democratic and free society has not been finished in Iraq. The Australian government certainly remains committed to assisting the Iraqi people to live in a country where they are not oppressed by a Taliban style regime. We have seen the brutality of such a regime in Afghanistan and we should not permit it to be repeated. The presence of Australian Defence Force troops undoubtedly has a place in Iraq until such time that all Iraqi people can live without the pain and suffering so often inflicted by insurgents and terrorists.

It is crucial that we do not have a date for withdrawal. If Australia wants to withdraw from its role in Iraq prematurely, the consequences could be dire. We would, in effect, be abandoning the majority of Iraqi people and placing them into the hands of the insurgents and the terrorists. Furthermore, the insurgents and terrorists will use propaganda to claim victory and to gain a vital recruitment tool to encourage radically inclined Muslims to join their cause. This effect would not be isolated to Iraq in the Middle East but likely flow through to part of South-East Asia, especially Indonesia.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Maranoa will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.