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

I have received letters from the honourable member for Barton and the honourable member for New England proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d) I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is that proposed by the honourable member for Barton, namely:

The Government’s failure to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq, despite today marking the 4th anniversary of that invasion.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

This is an important matter. Today is the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Two days before that invasion occurred, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the parliament. One would expect that speech to have been appropriate, given that Australians are entitled to absolute precision and certainty when it comes to the deployment of young Australian men and women in the service of their nation. On 18 March, the Prime Minister said:

The engagement of our defence forces will be limited to the period of the conflict ...

I think any reasonable Australian would assume that the conflict he referred to there was the immediate invasion of Iraq and not its aftermath in terms of peacekeeping or stability operations. Indeed, that was confirmed on 4 May 2003, when the Prime Minister, who was then in New York, was interviewed and said that we would be bringing back the troops. He continued:

When we bring back the SAS and the Hornets and some other force elements, we will still have during the transitional period some 1,000 to 1,200 personnel in the area ...

He then said:

... the president reiterated his clear understanding all along we would not be providing a significant peacekeeping force.

Then he was asked, in that context:

Do you see it as months or years ...

He said:

Well I certainly don’t see it as years.

Here we are, four years after, with our combat forces still involved in Iraq. The Prime Minister says that in no way are those public statements of his misleading or inconsistent, because the Al Muthanna task group was deployed in Al Muthanna in March 2005, which corresponds with my recollection. But, on any reasonable analysis, statements by the Prime Minister and many statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm that it was never the intention that Australia be involved in a protracted occupancy of Iraq—and that is certainly what has occurred.

In terms of what the government’s plans are for Australian forces to be withdrawn from Iraq, quite frankly, it is anyone’s guess. I asked the Prime Minister a question today. The text of my question was:

Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of the preparation by the Pentagon of a plan for a phased withdrawal of United States troops in the event that the current ‘surge’ of United States troops fails to stop sectarian violence in Iraq?

I also asked:

Does the Prime Minister have a similar contingency plan of phased withdrawal in place for Australian forces?

Subject to the transcription of his answer, the Prime Minister, as I recall, said, ‘The answer is yes, it is normal for such a contingency plan to be prepared’—or words to that effect. In answer to the follow-up question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—which basically was, ‘What is that contingency plan?’—the Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of misleading him, because, he said, he had been asked about the United States plan.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

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

The minister at the table interjects that perhaps they are one and the same. Perhaps we have delegated our foreign policy responsibility on such an important issue to the United States administration and perhaps, in that context, their plan is our plan. The Labor Party are very strong allies of the United States—always have been and always will be—but we will never delegate our national security responsibility to any other regime.

Looking at the government’s strategy in respect of Iraq, you will see that it is delusional. We invaded Iraq for the purpose of ridding that country of weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, those weapons of mass destruction did not exist. The invasion occurred despite the fact that the United Nations inspectors had not completed their reporting on that matter.

Why was the invasion necessary? The invasion became necessary—as the Prime Minister said in a speech on 4 February 2003—because international sanctions had failed. He said:

The old policy of containment is eroding. Saddam Hussein has increasingly been able to subvert the sanctions.

He also accused Saddam Hussein of ‘cruelly and simply manipulating the oil for food program’. There is no doubt that that was occurring. The Prime Minister said:

Tragically for the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein has rorted the program, violated its provisions and evaded its constraints.

Regrettably, again he was dead accurate—dead for many Iraqis and allied troops, indeed. He was quite correct. Saddam Hussein had bypassed the sanctions and rorted the oil for food program. And who were the biggest international rorters, the world champions of rorting, of that program that led to the invasion of Iraq, in the Prime Minister’s own words? Australia was. Australians have been disgraced in that it was our government—a government that was responsible for signing off the work of AWB—that was responsible for the greatest rorting of that oil for food program and for bypassing the sanctions regime.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

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

I pick up and note that admission. It is an admission that the government rorted the oil for food program and the sanctions against Iraq. That is why the invasion was necessary. The government is a disgrace in that respect. It is a disgrace that no charges have been laid relating to the oil for food program and the rorting carried out by AWB—no charges. We suspect that the Crown prosecutors will give a report after the next election. It is a disgrace that no public servants have been sacked as a result of AWB having rorted that program. In addition, it is a disgrace that ministers have not been held accountable for what—even taken in the very best of light—has been a gross neglect of their obligations in overseeing the work of AWB.

In effect, the invasion of Iraq occurred as a result of a falsehood. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had not been permitted to exhaust and complete its weapons inspection. It became necessary because of the failure of the sanctions. The sanctions were unquestionably rorted and Australia, under this government, were the biggest rorters. But after four long years in Iraq, the government is yet to admit responsibility for this gross foreign policy failing—indeed, an outrageous abuse of power in the sense that those sanctions were rorted.

The Prime Minister says: ‘Look, forget the past. I’m not going to apologise, but forget the past. What we have to do is fight the terrorists who are in Iraq.’ Again, the representations in this respect are misrepresentations. Why do I say that? Firstly, before the invasion of Iraq, there was no evidence of a substantial presence of al-Qaeda in that country. Indeed, security reports have confirmed that. Secondly, the Prime Minister, with respect, is misrepresenting the nature of the conflict that is occurring in Iraq. Iraq is essentially facing a civil war, and that civil war is between a Shiite majority and a Sunni minority.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And what are the consequences for people of your policy?

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

I again pick up the intervention. The consequences for people of our policy are to address the fact that the conflict exists and to admit that it is a conflict that exists. It is a civil war between warring Islamic factions, between Shiites and the Sunnis. Yes, there is a presence of insurgents supported by al-Qaeda. By and large, they are supporting the Sunnis. The Sunni minority is trying to take down the Shiites.

But, as the American ambassador acknowledged in July last year, the principal cause of instability in Iraq is sectarian violence, this conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. To say that we are in there fighting terrorists as opposed to trying to police and babysit, if you like, two Islamic factions is a complete misrepresentation. Indeed, in the area where Australians are in southern Iraq, in the provinces of Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, they are virtually totally Shiite. Indeed, the Shiite militias from Baghdad go there on holidays for a bit of a break from the hostilities. There is very little, if any, Sunni presence, and one can assume from that that there is very little likelihood—and the government can correct me if I am wrong on this—of an al-Qaeda presence at all in that area.

So the representation that Australians are there fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation; it is a misrepresentation of the nature of the conflict in Iraq. It is a civil war that even General Petraeus, who has been complimented by the Prime Minister today, acknowledges is only going to be solved by a political solution. So this representation that we have to have troops there because they are fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation.

On the other hand, our troops are most certainly fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. In the coming months they are going to come under all kinds of pressure. The government knows, we know, it is an extremely dangerous situation. There are approximately 10,000 Taliban fighters who have been trained in Pakistan by al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, ready for a summer invasion of Afghanistan, and who our troops will be confronting. It is a very dangerous situation indeed. There is a substantial prospect of casualties, which of course we all hope and pray against. That is why we asked the Prime Minister in question time today, ‘Does the government have any additional plans to supplement our force structure in Afghanistan?’

But it is not simply a question of supplementing your force structure, your protective forces, in Afghanistan; it is a question of allocating your national security priorities. In that context, Mark Thompson, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that by focusing your resources on one battle location, you ‘double the resources that can be devoted to higher command, intelligence and policy, at the same time delivering a greater capacity for force protection and independent national command on the ground’. That is an expert saying, ‘If you’re in a combat situation, obviously if you can focus your resources on the one zone, you are doubling the resources that you can apply for that protection.’

No-one would ever say that anything our troops did was tokenistic or symbolic. Clearly our Australian troops are decent, talented, highly professional people. But the reality is they are in circumstances where they have not been called out as part of their civil call function or their security overwatch function; they have not been called out to assist the Iraqi police in that role. You have to question why we have them there. Why aren’t we focusing those resources where our troops are fighting terrorists, where they are facing an extremely dangerous period in the coming months? Why are we splitting our resources, including our intelligence resources? Why aren’t we backing up our troops in Afghanistan to ensure that casualties are minimised?

I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were here, that it is the responsibility of a Prime Minister in these circumstances not to think as a politician but to think as a warrior. And a warrior looks at outcomes, not symbolism. The outcomes that we can achieve in fighting the terrorists, the Taliban in Afghanistan, are real. That is where our resources should be focused. If we do not focus sufficient resources on protecting our troops in Afghanistan, then we are not doing the right thing by them. Clearly we are not doing the right thing by them, and, worse than that, we are exposing them to risk.

Our involvement in Iraq has been flawed from the start; we invaded Iraq on a false premise. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The invasion was necessary because the sanctions that had been imposed had been rorted. The Australian government and AWB under the control of the Australian government were the world’s leading rorters of that program. The government has absolutely no plans. It has not at any stage declared a mission statement for our troops. It is a disgrace and the government deserves to be condemned for this policy failure. (Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance debate at this time in this place is about the consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq. It is about the consequences if the West and the coalition forces were to withdraw unilaterally without securing peace and security on the ground. Do we allow the door to open again to ethnic cleansing, at best, and to genocide, selectively, at worst? That is what this debate is about right now, at this point in history. It is also about the willingness to make decisions for the long-term security of Australia.

So there are two great consequences risked by the actions which the alternative government of Australia seeks to pursue. Those consequences are very simple. Firstly, there would be a human nightmare and catastrophe if the West were to withdraw now. On the timetable proposed, if the West were to withdraw without first achieving conditions of security across Iraq, what we will see is very simple: a return to the strategic and humanitarian nightmare which was Iraq in the past. But whereas then it was in the hands of a single strongman, who was responsible for the atrocities in Halabja in 1988, what we would see now is a country divided and destroyed, with a humanitarian nightmare which would be a return to the past and which would far exceed by an order of magnitude anything we see today.

So, when the question is raised, as it should be, about the consequences of where we are now, I want to draw a distinction between the past, the present and the future. The story of the past is a very simple one. The story of the past under Saddam Hussein is of genocide of the Marsh Arabs in the south, of the Kurds in the north and at Halabja on 16 March 1988, when he used chemical weapons against his own people, when 8,000 souls were taken. But more broadly it is the story of when hundreds of thousands of souls were taken in a brutal, slave state and totalitarian regime. That is what was brought to an end on 20 March 2003. It has not been pretty since, but let us never idealise or ignore it. (Quorum formed) The end of Saddam Hussein was the end of a prolonged period of ethnic cleansing, genocide, a totalitarian regime and a slave state. We make no apologies for bringing about the end of those circumstances. What we have seen since is a difficult situation—let us make no mistake about that—but what would occur if the policy of the Leader of the Opposition were adopted is genocide, ethnic cleansing and a strategic nightmare. That is what we face. It is a policy that has not acknowledged in any way at any time the consequences of walking out of Iraq. There is a myth being perpetrated that in some way we can do this without cost, without consequence and without bringing about a human tragedy. I believe that most members of the opposition know this but avert their eyes.

They know that their policy will bring about a human nightmare. It is a nightmare that I witnessed for myself when I was working for the United Nations in Geneva in 1993 recording the failure and inaction on the human tragedy in Bosnia—when we were not there and failed to take real steps to prevent what was occurring. It is a nightmare which would occur again under the policy proposed by the alternative government of Australia, and it would be a human tragedy as well as a strategic disaster.

Let me deal specifically with the three great myths of the policy put forward by the people who want to be the government. First is that there would be no consequences to walking out of Iraq if the West were to do that. Second is this absurd distinction between failure in Iraq and failure in Afghanistan. Let me be clear: if we fail in Afghanistan, as they say, then that will have enormous consequences on the ground in human terms, strategically and in security terms for Australia, but if we fail in Iraq there will be precisely the same consequences and it will open up a Pandora’s box that we will have to deal with for succeeding generations. The third great myth they have is that Australian troops do not really matter and that what we are doing in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar in southern Iraq is not really making a difference. But, if you take away one of the legs of a stable stool, the others will not be enough. We are a critical part in the security of Tallil, Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar. That is absolutely the case.

The first of these great myths is that there will be no consequence to a precipitate withdrawal and that the West can walk out and it will be okay. There are people of goodwill who have put the case for withdrawal, but I put the position that they are clearly and absolutely wrong. The reason why is simple. It is that, although there is an incredibly difficult situation in Iraq now, there have been many areas of progress—whether it is the five million people who now have access to fresh water, the changes in the period of available electricity or the fact that six out of 10 divisions of the Iraqi army have been returned to Iraqi control, that 328,000 troops have been trained and that 135,000 police have been trained.

Whilst there is difficulty, there is progress at the same time. But without support we will see the two forces of Saddam Hussein’s legatees and those who are linked with or are supporting al-Qaeda wreak havoc on that country. What is occurring now is difficult and tragic, but it is better than it was under Saddam Hussein. As yesterday’s Australian newspaper reported, 5,000 Iraqis who were interviewed said, on a basis of two to one, it is better now than under Saddam Hussein. That is not us; that is the Iraqi people themselves in one of the most exhaustive public opinion polls ever conducted in Iraq.

We see then that the consequences will be real and human. If we walk out then we will see Shiite versus Sunni and Shiite versus Kurd, and perhaps we will see a risk to the Marsh Arabs again. On all of these fronts, we will see ethnic cleansing and potentially a return to selective genocide. That is the great charge and the great responsibility which is before us today. The opposition are right to raise the notion of consequences, but they are real and human consequences. Most of them know that but they fail to address the simple question: what will be the human consequences if we—not just Australia but the West—walk out today? They want the West to go, and if the West goes there will be ethnic cleansing and potentially genocide.

The second great consequence is that what we saw under the Taliban in Afghanistan will occur in Iraq. Iraq will be a platform for a strategic nightmare where maybe not all but enough of the country will be a base for terrorist action and training throughout the Middle East and potentially for those people who would work in our own region of Australia. Those are fundamental, long-term strategic consequences. It will not even be the opposition who will have to deal with it; it will be succeeding generations that will have to clean up the nightmare if we re-open the door to a slave state, or to parts of it, and to a Taliban style platform for the work of al-Qaeda and others. There can be no graver responsibility that we have for the rest of the world. We have the fear and the risk in the future, whether it is in five, 10 or 20 years, of some form of dirty bomb. There would never be a better place for this sort of preparation and activity to occur.

The second great myth they have is that it is okay if Iraq falls over but if Afghanistan falls over that would be a real problem. It would be a real problem, but the same applies to both. In fact, there are three great theatres of activity: Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Middle East. We need to prevent the work of al-Qaeda and others who would bring forth an Islamic caliphate. They have a vision of the world which is a perversion of Islam, which is a perversion of the religion to which the vast majority of people in that region adhere, and which serves the same purpose as it did for the Oklahoma bombers when they misused their religion by claiming that they were acting in their religion. That battle has to be fought right across the Middle East in hearts and minds, and through diplomacy as well. If we fail in any of these theatres then it will be a problem. It will be not just a problem but a nightmare that our children and others will have to deal with because we walked out at the most important time. This is a critical juncture in history and to walk away from any one of these platforms is to walk away from our responsibility. To do so because it might be politically convenient is pure, venal, political opportunism. There are people on the other side who are better than that, but unfortunately the goodwill of one or two individuals does not prevail over a policy which is an impossibility—and that is to walk out and fail and let these consequences occur.

This brings me to my last point, about the importance of Australian actions. I want to deal firstly with the misrepresentation of the Prime Minister’s response in question time today. The Prime Minister responded very clearly on his position and understanding of the US system, and to try to shoehorn his answer into the confected response that the opposition pretend is an abuse of their position and an abuse of the processes in this House. He was very clear on his position in talking about the United States.

But what about the Australians? My last point is that the Australians play a critical role. We are involved in development, diplomacy and security. If our 520 troops in the Overwatch Battle Group in Tallil are withdrawn, what we will see is the disappearance of the prime support in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar province for the work of local Iraqis, who are now beginning to take control. They are a fundamental leg in the platform of stability. If you take them away at this point in time, it will have real consequences: it will open the door for increased instability. Their presence alone is an important security guarantee. So we underestimate their contribution at our peril and at the peril of southern Iraq. Ultimately, this debate at this moment in history is about the consequences of action or inaction. Inaction is Australia and the West failing to play their parts. If we withdraw, there will be a humanitarian nightmare and a security nightmare for future generations.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a patronising, ill-informed and inaccurate contribution we have just had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There was plenty of patriotic fervour, but, sadly, it was ill informed and inaccurate. For a moment, I thought the Minister for Defence had turned up for the debate, such was the hand-on-heart approach in the contribution we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary. He is familiar with the approach from the Minister for Defence; we have seen it too often from him. Parliamentary Secretary, the people of Australia and our troops expect more from their Minister for Defence than hand-on-heart rhetoric. They need a government with the capacity to make real strategic decisions and put in place infrastructure that supports our troops.

This brings me to the point on the Minister for Defence. The Prime Minister and senior ministers of the government are very fond of the phrase ‘cut and run’, and here we are, on the fourth anniversary of the deployment of our troops to a dangerous theatre of war far away, and they cannot even come in here to debate the issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence are not even prepared to come in here and have this very important debate. They are not even prepared to come in here on this anniversary and acknowledge the very good work of the Australian troops: their bravery, their skills and their commitment to their country. At the very least, I am sure that the men and women of the ADF would have expected no less from these ministers, but alas we effectively get a backbencher contributing to this all-important debate on this all-important anniversary.

As each day passes, the Howard government’s case for remaining in Iraq—in the southern provinces in particular—grows weaker and weaker. As each day goes by, the Prime Minister grows increasingly lonely on this issue. I drove to Avalon Airport this morning for the Australian International Airshow—and I quickly congratulate the organisers of that event—and was listening to ABC radio on the way, as you do. The announcer lamented the fact that yesterday they had put considerable time and effort into organising a forum on the Iraq war and Australia’s participation in it and, alas, he was unable to find a single expert willing to participate in the forum in support of our intervention in Iraq.

Worse, the Brits are leaving. We learned that the US has a withdrawal plan. The only person in the international community without a withdrawal plan from Iraq is our own Prime Minister—and, of course, his government. So he becomes increasingly lonely—although we put a caveat on that following question time. Does the Prime Minister have a withdrawal plan? We have had a bit of a debate about the way he answered that question today. He was asked about the US contingency plan and he said, ‘The answer is yes.’ The question was: ‘Does the government have a contingency plan; does it have a phased withdrawal plan from Iraq?’ He answered, ‘Yes, it is normal for that contingency planning to be made.’ So we are in doubt about whether, in the face of current opinion polling, the Prime Minister is now developing a withdrawal strategy from Iraq. Hopefully tomorrow, during question time, he will get an opportunity to clarify that point.

When I arrived in this portfolio, only about three months ago, I thought my perspective on Iraq might change. I thought that, as I did the rounds with the experts—organisations like ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute; former deputy secretaries of the department; even the chiefs of our defence forces—and I wandered the corridors of the Australian National University, I might be convinced that I was wrong on Iraq, but, alas, I did not experience any road to Damascus; I have not been convinced I was wrong. In fact, if anything, I have been absolutely and overwhelmingly convinced that the Labor Party and the opposition generally has been right on this point all along and that it is right to say that this is one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions ever taken by this country.

Today, on this matter of public importance, we have given the government the opportunity to rebut the case—to state the reasons they intervened in Iraq in the first place and to give justification for our ongoing involvement in Iraq. Again, all we got from the parliamentary secretary was rubbish. Predictably, he started to roll out the view about almost the end of the world if we were to withdraw our Overwatch Battle Group from the southern provinces of Iraq. There would be all sorts of crises as a result, according to the parliamentary secretary.

Does the parliamentary secretary understand that Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna provinces are dominated by Shiites? Al-Qaeda is a Sunni based organisation. We are not finding al-Qaeda in the southern provinces of Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna; we never will. There is a very tenuous connection at best between our involvement in the southern provinces in Iraq and the fight against al-Qaeda. It is a point that the parliamentary secretary simply does not understand.

The first priority for any government is the safety and security of its country and its people. That requires sound strategic decision making in the first instance. After that, it requires a responsible use of our troops and our military assets. This means never putting our troops in harm’s way unnecessarily. That is exactly what the Howard government did when it took the decision to deploy our troops in a faraway war without the sanction of the United Nations. It has failed in its first commitment to the nation and to its citizens. Both the men and women of the ADF and Australians generally expect more from their Minister for Defence than that, they expect more from their Minister for Foreign Affairs than that and they expect more from their Prime Minister than that. The parliamentary secretary, again predictably, spent a fair bit of time trying to suggest that Labor were walking on both sides of the street: we have one position on Iraq and another position on Afghanistan. I have partly answered that question already by making the point that the role we are playing in the southern provinces has a tenuous link at best with the war against terror.

But Afghanistan, as the member for Barton has pointed out, is a very different proposition. Iraq has descended into a civil war between ethnic groups, a civil war which will not end with guns and bullets. It is time the government dusted off the bipartisan report of the Iraq Study Group, took on board its recommendations and heard the message about the solution in Iraq—if there is ever to be a solution. I remind the House that it was only a matter of weeks ago that the Minister for Defence told a conference in Canberra, organised by the Australian Defence magazine, that there is no victory in Iraq and it simply is not possible to impose a Western style democracy on a country like Iraq. It poses the question: why then are we there? First, it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it was about establishing a democratically elected government, and then it was about bedding down that government and the security of that country. But the minister tells us it is not possible to impose a Western style democracy on a country like Iraq, so why are we there?

But Afghanistan is a very different situation. It is the home of terrorism. All the Bali bombers were trained in Afghanistan. It is the home of drugs; a huge narcotics industry has its base in Afghanistan. We have a deployment in a war that can and must be won. Of course, the opposition supported our intervention in Afghanistan post 9-11 and we have supported it ever since. Indeed, we were rightly critical of the government when, in the lead-up to its intervention in Iraq, it withdrew our troops from Afghanistan rather than sticking it out and seeing the job through. So there is no argument. They are very different circumstances and the government stands condemned for its position on Iraq.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me no pleasure to follow the member for Hunter on this matter of public importance. I was quite disturbed to hear him lost for words. He referred to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the human and security consequences of withdrawal from Iraq as ‘goo’, whatever he might have meant by that, but to trivialise the human and security consequences really shows a lack of understanding and a superficial analysis of the situation and the possible consequences in Iraq. I quote from a National Intelligence Estimate of January 2007 which says:

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

the Iraqi security forces—

would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable …

Perhaps the member for Hunter would call those comments ‘goo’ as well. He said that it was impossible to have a Western style democracy in Iraq. It reminds me of those very paternalistic, colonial approaches to non-Western nations which say: ‘If you are not Western, you can’t experience democracy. If you are not one of us, you can sit there and suffer.’ I for one in this government do not accept that. We believe in the importance of democracy and trying to assist that all over our globe.

The member for Barton has often been described as ‘a good bloke with a bad brief’ and he has not failed to live up to his reputation with this matter of public importance we are debating today. The only thing he did get right in this matter of public importance was that today is the fourth anniversary of military action getting underway against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—and, may I say, military action which saw the downfall of the brutal dictator for which the world is a better place. The government does not shy away from its original decision.

We have seen the Labor Party fly the white flag and give up on Iraq, and we have to ask why? Is it pandering to certain factional elements within its own party? Is it perhaps trying to be cute and populist? Whatever the reason, it really has not explained why we need to withdraw from Iraq. The member for Hunter talked about never putting our troops in harm’s way, but he failed to mention that there have been no troop casualties in Iraq. We have seen this quite artificial distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and the terrorism in both nations. The fate of terrorism in Afghanistan is linked with the fate of terrorism in Iraq.

Both countries have had Australian troops both in a military manner and with reconstruction efforts, and it was very pleasing to see in a survey published on 18 March—the largest survey since troops entered Iraq in 2003—that Iraqis prefer the current leadership by two to one. In contradiction to what is being said by the opposition, most Iraqis do not believe they are in a civil war. So what are we to believe—a survey of Iraqis living in Iraq or the desperate assertions of the Labor Party that there is a civil war, when clearly those in that nation say there is not?

What happens if we withdraw, as the Labor Party wants us to do? Single-handedly we would give the worldwide terrorist cause a massive boost, and it would be a blow for the Australian-American alliance. As we all know, the Leader of the Opposition attempts to be all things to all people, including to our US allies. We are getting quite used to the image in our minds of him walking both sides of the street on almost every issue. He has had more policy positions on Iraq than one cares to remember.

When the war started, the Labor Party was opposed to sending troops. In 2003 Mr Rudd went to Iraq, said it was still a war zone and then said we should increase the number of troops to provide training and protection for the Iraqi security forces and people. What does he think our troops are currently doing in Iraq? They are still training Iraqi soldiers. They are doing an excellent job. Everywhere Australian soldiers go, they make friends and create new alliances. They have a positive impact in Iraq and in other nations. Our troops are very culturally adaptable, and you only need to speak to them to know.

How many members of the opposition have spoken to our service men and women who have been in Iraq and understood how positive our efforts and mission in Iraq have been and how good Australian soldiers feel about the significant contribution—contrary to the patronising comments of the member for Barton—that they have made? Whether it was training a local army or sponsoring and managing Australian aid in Al Muthanna, they have made a contribution far in excess of their actual numbers. I am proud of our troops still serving and of those who have been on their mission.

Where does Mr Rudd stand on Iraq? He has made confusing and contradictory statements when commenting on the matter. We know from The Latham Diaries that Mr Rudd pleaded with the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, not to bring his troops home by Christmas. Now he says the first thing he would do if ever given the chance of governing Australia would be to start the process of withdrawal. It seems that it is not just education and health policies that are regurgitated from the Latham era; it is also diplomatic policies and attitudes towards Iraq.

When referring to weapons of mass destruction, the member for Barton failed to mention the words of the Leader of the Opposition back in 2002. Perhaps he conveniently omitted their inclusion. When he was not leader, Mr Rudd said:

Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists ...

We have had bleating from the opposition this afternoon criticising the government for its initial reasons for sending troops to Iraq, referring to the fact that the claims of weapons of mass destruction did not live up to expectations, and yet the current Leader of the Opposition, at the time, had the same beliefs. But, of course, that was conveniently omitted.

But why withdraw, and what are the consequences to our alliance? What factions are the Labor leadership group pandering to? Are they preparing for the next federal election by attempting to secure Green preferences, like the Premier of New South Wales is doing now in the lead-up to the New South Wales election? What can we possibly achieve by withdrawing, other than contributing to the possibly disastrous human and security consequences for Iraq that have been outlined so far? We will be just another Western nation walking out on the US. That obviously pleases and delights those who are used to US bashing on a regular basis, but the mission in Iraq cannot be abandoned. We have a job to finish. Our troops are making an extraordinary contribution and will continue to do so.

The government are committed to helping the Iraqis rebuild a better nation. We have done positive things. The morale of our service men and women and of US service men and women is high. They know they are doing an important job. They know they have a job to continue and that it is not over.

I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has yet again changed his position on Iraq. I can imagine him speaking to representatives of the US government, saying: ‘Look, mate, don’t worry about this. We don’t really mean it. We still want to be your friends, but I’ve got to say one thing to the loonies in my party and to the loony Greens, who might help me win government. But we don’t really mean it.’ What does he really mean? We will never really know because his position changes on a daily basis.

All I have to say in closing is that our soldiers, our service men and women, have done an extraordinary job well beyond their numbers. They will continue to do so under this government. If the Labor Party do not understand the disastrous consequences of withdrawal, they do not even deserve to be considered as an alternative government. (Time expired)

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support my colleagues the shadow ministers for foreign affairs and defence in this important debate. At the outset, I would like to say that the Australian Labor Party supports the service men and women who are serving our country in Iraq. They are the pride of Australia and do us all proud each and every day. In response to the member for Indi, who is running out of the chamber: in 2005 I along with other members of this parliament had the opportunity to visit our service personnel who are stationed in the Iraq theatre. I was honoured to have the chance to talk to many of them, and I conveyed to them, as did others, the support of all Australians. Those men and women deserve our enduring respect and admiration.

However, as my colleagues have said, we should not have embarked on this war in Iraq. The Australian government is deluding itself and trying to dupe all Australians when it continues to argue the case for war. It is hard to find even vociferous right-wing commentators in the United States and the United Kingdom who still believe that the stated reasons for the war remain valid. It is four years ago today since the invasion of Iraq officially began. Over that time 3,209 American personnel have been killed and many more injured. Along with this 6,294 Iraqi security force personnel have been killed, along with countless civilians. And the violence is growing.

Many reports and editorials have been written in the newspapers over the last few days about this anniversary. One of the most poignant was in the Guardian. Anas Altikriti wrote about the war from an Iraqi point of view. He said in the article:

Millions of Iraqis, indeed the vast majority of the population (myself included), regarded the Ba’athist regime as one of the most brutal and evil dictatorships in the world. We dreamt of seeing the back of it for decades while the US—

and Britain and other Western countries—

... provided it with unlimited military, economic and political support in return for ... commercial and financial gains. Now we find the country and its people facing times much worse than they ever were, even in those dark days.

So what have we achieved over the last four years? We have a situation in Iraq of civil war. We have compromised the war on terror in Afghanistan because we diverted crucial attention away from this, the main game against terror, because of an ideological and obsequious deference to the United States’s agenda on Iraq.

Put simply, we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and we now stand to pay a high price for this failure of judgement. We are risking the lives of our own service men and women in a dangerous war zone for a reason which has changed many times since the conflict began. This has been going on for four long years. While our men and women were fighting the fight the Howard government was giving Saddam Hussein’s government kickbacks in the form of payments under the oil for food program. In other words, Australia funded the very bullets that Saddam was using against us and other coalition troops.

At this point, I would like to refer members to an excellent speech given in this House by the member for Brand in a censure motion against the government last year. I would like to quote from his speech with regard to what Saddam Hussein did with the kickbacks he received from the Australian Wheat Board:

Saddam, as a result of our actions, was able to maintain the Scud missile launchers for which the SAS were asked to risk their lives to destroy. He was able to maintain the Iraqi soldiers in machine-gun-mounted four-wheel drives that the SAS fought running battles with early in the war. He was able to maintain a good proportion of the 50 aircraft that the Australian Special Forces Group captured at Al Asad air base west of Baghdad. He was able to maintain the sea mines which RAN boarding parties risked their lives to neutralise ... He was able to maintain the tanks, trucks, artillery bunkers and logistical support which RAAF Hornet pilots risked their lives to destroy in strike and close air support missions.

The government has no credibility left whatsoever. It turned a blind eye to the illegal activities of the AWB, which actively supported our enemies. It took us to a war we should never have been in. It risked and still risks the lives of our troops—good and decent Australian men and women—for its flawed foreign policy in Iraq. Let us not forget the reason the government gave originally for our military commitment to Iraq: weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, we know there were no such weapons.

Unfortunately arrogance will not do the government any good. When you look back, the Prime Minister originally said that regime change in Iraq was not an appropriate reason to commit Australian troops in Iraq. I wonder what he is doing about Zimbabwe, if that was the case for going to war. The Australian government has run out of excuses. It is discredited. It is playing with the lives of young men and women of Australia. The PM referred to terrorism against Afghanistan versus terrorism in Iraq. The reality is that the terror was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Remember September 11. We went to Afghanistan on the basis of the ANZUS alliance, and we need to be there. Iraq is primarily facing a challenge from the internal insurgency and our presence, many commentators state, is exacerbating the problem. It is time for us to realise that we need to be out of Iraq and out now. (Time expired)

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

)—I rise to speak to the proposition put forward by the shadow minister for foreign affairs in this MPI. I want to quote to the House the matter proposed for discussion before I continue my contribution:

The Government’s failure to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq, despite today marking the 4th anniversary of that invasion

Clearly, the Labor Party are just playing cheap politics. There can be no other reason for a proposition that refers to ‘disastrous consequences’ as a result of the invasion in Iraq. What the Labor Party should be doing is acknowledging the invaluable assistance our troops have provided, and continue to provide, to the people of Iraq.

Let us have a look at the record of the past four years. Iraq now has a democracy. Approximately 70 per cent of eligible voters in Iraq were able to vote for their democracy in December 2005 at their national elections. They democratically elected a government that includes representatives from the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations. And it is a constitutional requirement, which was previously voted for, that women constitute 25 per cent of the total make-up of their parliament. The new security plan for Baghdad is designed, structured and led by Iraqis with the support of the United States. Is it a disastrous consequence to now have a democracy in Iraq representing the three major populations and women, as per their constitution?

Let us have a look at the record. Approximately 328,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have now been trained and equipped. Australia has been a vital part of that, helping to train the Iraqi police and military to keep law and order in their own country. Is that a disastrous consequence? I say it is not. The Iraqi Police Service is now responsible for security measures in over 130 districts, with nearly 1,000 stations throughout Iraq. The per capita GDP has increased by over 20 per cent since 2002. Is that a disastrous consequence, as the proposition from the opposition suggests? I say it is not. There has been a 27 per cent increase in the number of children enrolled in high schools since before the war. Is that a disastrous consequence? I say it is not a disastrous consequence. It is a wonderful outcome, having children able to go back to school. (Time expired)

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.