Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s rejection of the bipartisan US Baker-Hamilton strategy recommending a staged withdrawal of US forces to pressure the Iraqis to negotiate a political settlement between the Sunni and the Shia. Why does the Prime Minister reject a strategy that his own Minister for Foreign Affairs greeted as a good piece of work and one that drew all the right conclusions?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As usual the Leader of the Opposition is misrepresenting not only what I say but also what the Minister for Foreign Affairs says. Let me go to the Baker-Hamilton report. Let me read to the House an excerpt from the Baker-Hamilton report. On page 37 it states:

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

Let me repeat that:

Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

Those words are very close to the words of the national security estimate, which no doubt the Leader of the Opposition has read, in which it said amongst other things:

If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

It went on to say:

If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF—

Iraqi Security Forces—

would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict ...

and it goes on in similar vein. When challenged to state his own view as to the consequences of an American withdrawal by March 2008, the Leader of the Opposition has sought refuge in cherry picking Baker-Hamilton. That is what he has sought to do. The Leader of the Opposition has sought refuge in cherry picking Baker-Hamilton and he has ignored the conditionality of the proposition put in Baker-Hamilton. He has completely ignored the assessment that if there were a premature withdrawal in Iraq by the American forces there would be the consequences that have been outlined.

The most that the Leader of the Opposition would say this morning on AM when he was asked about the consequences of an American defeat or withdrawal in circumstances of defeat was: it would be bad. The sum total of the Leader of the Opposition’s assessment of the consequences of an American withdrawal in circumstances depicted as defeat is that it would be bad. That is the one word: it would be ‘bad’. I think it would be worse than that. It would represent a catastrophe for the West. It would have serious security implications for this country. A humiliated, weakened America after a withdrawal from Iraq depicted as a defeat would be bad news for the world and it would be bad news for the security of Australia.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of international attitudes on the future of Iraq? Is the minister aware of views which could imperil Iraq’s future?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest. I have been in Munich at the security conference there and I had the opportunity to talk with US Defense Secretary Gates, several United States Republican and Democrat members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the German foreign minister and the defence minister, the Pakistani foreign minister, the NATO Secretary General and the Swedish foreign minister. I also went to Ankara and met with the president, the foreign minister and the speaker of their parliament, who, Mr Speaker, sent his best wishes to you—I believe you are acquainted.

The point is, in relation to the honourable member for Boothby’s question, that of course this list of people—and there were others—have a variety of different views over whether it was right or wrong to throw Saddam Hussein out of office. But they are all united on one point—that is, a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous. It would be a victory for terrorists. It could draw neighbouring countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and possibly even Turkey, into the conflict. It would destabilise the Middle East as a whole. It would have disastrous consequences in the war against terrorism. It would embolden terrorists around the world and bring terrorism closer to Western countries. But, ultimately, it would also be a human disaster for the people of Iraq. They are suffering enough.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor members interject, ‘What about now?’ They are suffering enough already. Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition would wish them to suffer more by the precipitate withdrawal of American troops? As the Prime Minister has pointed out, when the Leader of the Opposition—and before he was Leader of the Opposition, by the way, when he was the spokesman on foreign affairs—is asked, ‘What would be the consequences of an American withdrawal?’ he always ducks the question. On 17 October he was asked that question eight times and he decided it was not convenient to answer that question. Of course I know while I have been away he has been asked that question and has continued to duck it. He came up with this thought bubble that he might quote the Iraq Study Group, and so he ran that line. He would not answer the question—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s your exit strategy?

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

Order! The member for Sydney is warned!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

except for some blather on the Iraq Study Group, which is, to say the least, cherry picking, selective quoting and deeply misleading. The Iraq Study Group has been quoted by the Prime Minister, but it also said:

The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach ... we oppose.

That is what the Iraq Study Group said. Labor members obviously have not read the report of the Iraq Study Group. There is no doubt about it: the international community believes it would be a mistake for America to withdraw precipitously and the Leader of the Opposition happens to think the reverse. The opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the member for Barton, said, when President Bush announced the surge, that Labor was opposed to the surge.

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

Dead right!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he says. But the Iraq Study Group said that it could support a surge. So the Labor Party says it supports the Iraq Study Group; the Iraq Study Group said ‘we could ... support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilise Baghdad’. So when the Labor Party, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, desperately trying to find populist positions, starts flailing around on a national security issue, he is exposed, as he has always been exposed on national security issues, for being an opportunist and not a deep policy thinker.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Insofar as the Minister for Foreign Affairs was referring to the report of the Iraq Study Group, will he table the—

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

That is not a point of order.

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

I seek leave that I might request that the Minister for Foreign Affairs table the entirety of the document from which he was referring, including the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

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

Was the minister reading from a confidential document?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He can borrow the Iraq Study Group report—the Leader of the Opposition has a copy just there.

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

Was the minister reading from a confidential document?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister has rejected the Baker-Hamilton strategy, what is the Prime Minister’s exit strategy for Iraq?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just as I am happy to tell the Australian people what I believe would be the consequences of a precipitate American withdrawal, I am very happy—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat—

Bob Sercombe (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Turn up your hearing aid!

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

The member for Maribyrnong will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The Prime Minister has the call and the Prime Minister will be heard.

The member for Maribyrnong then left the chamber.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start my answer again. Just as I am happy to tell the Australian people what I believe would be the consequences of a premature withdrawal by America, I am happy to tell the Australian people again—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a very clear question: what is his strategy—

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

The Prime Minister has hardly begun to answer the question. He is entirely in order and he will be heard.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start again. Just as I am happy to tell the Australian people what I believe the consequences of a premature withdrawal would be by the United States and by the coalition, I am more than happy to repeat to the Australian people what the goals and the strategy of the Australian government are in relation to Iraq. These have been goals and strategies that have been outlined by me, the foreign minister and the defence minister over a lengthy period of time, and they are that by our continued presence, by the contribution we make to the training of the Iraqi security forces, by the confidence we give to the people of the Iraq by our continued support, we are creating the circumstances where the people of Iraq—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How’s that going?

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

Order! I have had to take action with the member for Melbourne every sitting day this year. I give him a very clear warning: if he continues to interrupt I will deal with him very severely.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat that our strategy is through what I have said, most particularly through the training that we are providing in cooperation with our allies, the contribution we are making by our presence to the general security situation, the backup role that we have in the southern part of Iraq, we are creating—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Price interjecting

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

Order! The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the circumstances where it will be possible for the Iraqi security forces to provide in time the protection that is needed so that we can be reasonably confident that the people of Iraq can embrace the democracy they so clearly have voted for.

That has always been our goal: to give the people of Iraq a bit of hope. You want to deny them a future. You want to deny them any hope. You want to condemn them to the violence and chaos which everybody from Baker through to General Pace through to the Prime Minister of Iraq through to the head of the CNN bureau in Baghdad, reported this morning on Radio National—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this question is less than 19 words.

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

The member for Grayndler will come straight to his point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It asks: what is the Prime Minister’s exit strategy for Iraq?

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

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance.

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

You did not raise the point of relevance when you were on your feet.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this is clearly a tactic by the opposition, orchestrated by the Leader of the Opposition. He has plainly unleashed the member for Grayndler to deliberately disrupt answers to questions.

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

What is the point of order?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be dealt with.

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I do not believe the Leader of the House raised a point of order. I have dealt with the member for Grayndler’s non point of order. The member for Grayndler has another point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Prime Minister, at the beginning of the answer, redefined the question.

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

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler knows that if he wishes to raise a point of order he should come straight to it. He has done that and I will rule on it. It is clear to me that the Prime Minister is entirely in order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our strategy, in cooperation with our coalition partners, is to build the circumstances where the Iraqi security forces are able to provide a reasonable level of security in that country on their own so that the people of Iraq may be able to enjoy the democracy that they have on three occasions, in the face of the most fearful intimidation, voted to embrace. Those of us in this nation who have only ever enjoyed peaceful democracy should be in awe of the courage of 10 million Iraqis who, in the face of the most terrible intimidation, have voted to embrace a democratic future. That is our goal. Another goal that we have is to avoid the consequences of a premature withdrawal. The consequences of a premature withdrawal have been pointed out by Baker-Hamilton—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 104. The Prime Minister missed the word ‘exit’.

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

The member for Watson will resume his seat and I will rule on his point of order. I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister and he is entirely in order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of our goal is to avoid the disastrous consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq—as described by Baker-Hamilton, as described by the national intelligence assessment and as described by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was here in Canberra only two days ago. This is what he had to say:

I think that if coalition troops pull out prematurely then we will then have a humanitarian disaster—

A humanitarian disaster! That is what the opposition want to happen in Iraq—a humanitarian disaster—

because you will have sectarian violence that will get out of hand. You will have then many more Iraqis who are killed and you will have then, I believe, a spillover effect into Afghanistan.

So our strategy is to create the circumstances of stability by staying until the job is done so that the Iraqi security forces can look after the security of that country without foreign assistance. And our strategy is also to avoid a precipitous withdrawal and a withdrawal of American forces in circumstances depicted as defeat.

I say again—and I say it very deliberately to the Leader of the Opposition—that if out of Iraq America retreats in circumstances of defeat and humiliation, the consequences will be enormous not only in the Middle East and for Iraq but around the world, including for the long-term security interests of our nation.