Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to inform the House that Australian combat troops have lowered the flag at the conclusion of their mission in southern Iraq. The government, in bringing this about, is delivering on its commitment to the Australian people to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq. The Overwatch Battle Group (West) and Australian Army Training Team Iraq formally ceased operations at a ceremony in Camp Terendak, Talil a few hours ago. Iraqi, American and British commanders publicly thanked Australia, and the Australian troops, for their contribution during Sunday’s ceremony.

Australia’s commitment to southern Iraq included the deployment of an infantry and cavalry battle group for more than three years and a dedicated training team for almost four years. The training team commitment commenced in July 2003 but began in earnest with the formation of the Australian Army Training Team—Iraq in October 2004. The Australian Defence Force deployed a task group to al-Muthanna province in April 2005, initially to work with the Japanese Self-Defence Forces. Later, the group transitioned to an overwatch role and began providing convoy escorts and security for reconstruction projects, as well as training and mentoring for the Iraqi security forces in al-Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces in the second half of 2006.

A total of 3,700 Australian Defence Force personnel proudly served in the battle group and training team and thankfully, only six were wounded during this commitment. In addition, specialist training has been provided in logistics management, combat service support and, importantly, effective counter-insurgency operations. The Australian contribution to the Iraqi army’s Counter Insurgency Academy is one of the lasting legacies of our commitment. The success of recent Iraqi security operations in southern Iraq is in part thanks to the dedicated and professional role of this Australian training team.

Over the period of their commitment, our soldiers have faced and responded to multiple improvised explosive device, indirect- and direct-fire attacks. Australian infantry and cavalry soldiers have been courageous and resolute in response. Iraq remains a dangerous place—as recently as two weeks ago, an Australian soldier was seriously wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on an Australian armoured vehicle.

Australian forces have been especially recognised for the way they have been able to work so successfully with the local population in helping to improve their lives, including through the provision of about $9 million in funding for civil infrastructure projects such as redevelopment of schools, sanitation programs and enhancement of health facilities.

About 550 Australian Defence Force personnel are now preparing to—or are in the process of—withdrawing from Iraq. They have performed their mission superbly in a complex, dangerous and unpredictable environment. In the great tradition of the Australia Defence Force, they have responded with absolute professionalism to the demands of the democratically elected government of the day in Australia and discharged their mission with distinction.

However, this withdrawal does not signal an end to the Australian Defence Force’s mission. Australian Defence Force personnel will, of course, continue to support the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq through a variety of important roles:

• the Royal Australian Navy will continue maritime security operations in the Arabian Gulf, guarding oil platforms crucial to Iraq’s economy—part of a continuing Australian naval presence in the Gulf going back to the first Gulf War;
• the Royal Australian Air Force will support the coalition through vital transport, sustainment and maritime patrol tasks;
• the Australian Army will protect Australian diplomats, other civilian staff and senior visitors to Baghdad; and
• the Australian Defence Force will also maintain headquarters, logistics and embedded support elements.

The Australian Defence Force will continue operations elsewhere in the Middle East Area of Operations—in particular in support of our operations in Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding our government’s pride and appreciation for the service and sacrifice of our troops in Iraq, we on this side of the House did not support the decision to go to war. I presented the reasons for our opposition to the decision to go to war back in March 2003, as the then shadow foreign minister. Nor did we support the decision of the previous government to abandon its commitment prior to the 2004 election of no additional troops to Iraq and after the election to then send a further 450 troops to Iraq. The former Prime Minister presented four reasons in explaining his decision to go to war:

• to prevent further terrorist attacks;
• to prevent Iraq giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists;
• to prevent other rogue states giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists; and
• to put an end to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

On every count we on this side of the House rejected these arguments then, as we continue to reject them now. Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not been, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest. Has any evidence of a link between weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime and terrorists been found? No. Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No.

We are now informed that Syria has been building a nuclear capacity with North Korean assistance. Those reports remain to be fully conformed. And Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain a fundamental challenge. After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No, it has not.

Of most concern to this government was the manner in which the decision to go to war was made: the abuse of intelligence information, a failure to disclose to the Australian people the qualified nature of that intelligence—for example, the pre-war warning that an attack on Iraq would increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it—and a view that our alliance with the United States mandated our military participation in the invasion.

Our alliance with the United States is the first of the three pillars of our foreign policy. As I have said in previous parliamentary debate:

I come to this debate as a longstanding and passionate supporter of the US alliance, an alliance formed by Labor in 1941, an alliance that has delivered great benefit to this nation, to the region and to the world, and an alliance that continues to deliver great benefit ...

That is why at the time it caused me great pain as a longstanding friend of America to fundamentally part company with this administration’s policy on Iraq and the policy of global military pre-emption on which that policy was based.

This analysis is not unique to the Australian Labor Party. It is shared by many people of goodwill throughout the world, by many allies of the United States and by many who continue to see, as we do, the United States as overwhelmingly a force for good in the world.

I have said before and I will say again: this government does not believe that our alliance with the United States mandates automatic compliance with every element of United States foreign policy. Notwithstanding our opposition to this war, the government has consulted closely with the United States and our other partners in withdrawing our combat forces from Iraq both prior to the election and subsequent to the election. Such a process of consultation is the responsible course of action of any ally.

Mr Speaker, we must learn from Australia’s experience in the lead-up to going to war with Iraq and not repeat the same mistakes in the future. The decision to go to war was taken without a full and proper assessment by the government of its consequences. A decision to commit Australian forces to such a fundamental course of action as going to war must involve a careful and deliberate assessment by government on the basis of the most rigorous assessment by the intelligence agencies and government departments of the consequences of such an action. This was not done.

In 2004 the former head of the Office of National Assessments was appointed to review the conduct of the Australian intelligence community in the lead-up to the war. He found that the lack of a national assessment or a formal intelligence estimate about Iraq and the implications of war ‘was regrettable’. It was particularly regrettable because we now know that the decision to go to war was based on flawed intelligence.

In 2003, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Defence Signals Directorate made the following finding:

There was an expectation created prior to the war that actual weapons of mass destruction would be found and found in sufficient quantities to pose a clear and present danger requiring immediate pre-emptive action.

After initial military operations, it became evident that Iraq had not reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction program. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded that there was no evidence to suggest concerted efforts by Iraq to restart its nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

The Australian intelligence community, along with the international community, failed to judge accurately the extent and nature of Iraq’s WMD programs. The previous government’s own inquiry made the following finding:

There has been a failure of intelligence on Iraq WMD. Intelligence was thin, ambiguous and incomplete. Australia shared in the allied intelligence failure on the key question of WMD stockpiles ...

The government will continue to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the various inquiries commissioned by the previous government. The Australian government relies on the Australian intelligence community to prepare fully independent, professional and unbiased assessments. To do so, the intelligence community must be appropriately resourced. It must also be appropriately coordinated. And, on something as crucial as going to war, it should not simply be delivered with a pre-determined political decision.

We will continue to review and make adjustments to our intelligence arrangements, as and when required, to ensure the Australian government is always supported by the best possible intelligence. These agencies are a frontline in our nation’s defence.

Mr Speaker, the decision to go to war has had a number of consequences for the nation:

• The precedent created at international law;
• The cost to Australia and Australians;
• The suffering of Iraqi civilians; and
• The obligations we have incurred to help post-war reconstruction.

The former government said that its actions in Iraq were justified under international law. We on this side of the House challenged the impact that the decision to go to war had on the integrity of the international system. Adherence to international law offers us great opportunities for a stable, global rules based order. Australia has a strong interest in those rules being upheld, as a middle power. In fact, Australia helped shape these rules back in 1945.

The UN Charter recognises two legal justifications for the use of force:

• firstly, Article 42 of the UN Charter, which indicates that you can act together with other states once the action has been explicitly authorised by the United Nations Security Council—this did not happen in the case of Iraq; and
• secondly, Article 51, which is about the right to self-defence—nor did that apply in the case of Iraq.

There is a further emerging principle surrounding the debate on the responsibility to protect, but that too in the current debate is centred again on the deliberations of the council.

Australia has to be very mindful of new precedents being established at international law and practice which justify the invasion of one state by another in the absence of any reference to these principles.

Thankfully, no Australian Defence Force personnel have been killed in action in Iraq since the commencement of operations in 2003. We offer genuine thanks for that. However, sadly, the Australian Defence Force has suffered two non-battle deaths:

• Warrant Officer Class 2 Dave Nary, of the Special Air Service Regiment, was killed while undertaking battle preparation for a protective security task in the area of operations on 6 November 2005; and
• Private Jake Kovco, serving with the embassy security detachment, died in a firearm incident on 21 April 2006 in Baghdad.

About 27 Australian Defence Force personnel have been physically wounded in Iraq.

The government is determined to ensure that those service personnel who have suffered from their service, and their families, are appropriately cared for. They deserve nothing less. The consequences of a decision to go to war are never simple, without suffering or without expense. In a financial sense, the net additional cost of our military commitment to the war in Iraq since 2003 has been $2.314 billion. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that have occurred as a result of the war vary greatly. There is no ‘official’ statistic. The UK based Iraq Body Count currently estimates civilian deaths at between 84,000 and 91,000. Other figures range from 50,000 to more than half a million. Saddam Hussein led a regime that was brutal, repressive and murderous.

Despite recent successes, the Iraqi government, the coalition and the international community continue to confront significant challenges in providing the economic, security and humanitarian circumstances that the Iraqi people deserve. This is where our efforts must now turn, and our presence there now, in contrast to our initial commitment to the war, has clear international legal authority. That presence is at the request of the government of Iraq and has also been authorised by successive UN Security Council resolutions adopted since the conflict commenced.

Australia will remain a friend to the Iraqi people for the long term in the postwar reconstruction of their country. Even if we disagreed with the decision to go to war, we will continue to discharge our responsibilities to aid that reconstruction. Our responsibilities to help the people of Iraq come about from the various UN resolutions on Iraq and our role as one of the initial countries to participate in the invasion. These responsibilities cannot be handed off to another power. In committing to the war, Australia also committed to the reconstruction. This will be a long-term project requiring the assistance of many countries over an extended period of time and, equally importantly, it will require the commitment and goodwill of all Iraqis, particularly Iraq’s leaders.

The 2008-09 budget provided a significantly expanded Australian program of assistance to Iraq. Total development assistance will increase to $313.4 million, including: first, the provision of a third and final tranche of debt relief of $238 million; second, an expanded program of assistance through AusAID of $60 million; third, $10 million to support Iraqi refugees, provided by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship; and, fourth, $5 million to increase police capacity building by the Australian Federal Police.

The AusAID program will be focused on key sectors which will contribute to progress against the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. In the first year, one-third of the program—$20 million—will be directed towards humanitarian relief. This will enable Australia to make a more significant contribution to international relief efforts, with an emphasis on vulnerable women and children.

Food insecurity remains a critical problem for the Iraqi population. We will make an additional food aid contribution this year, which will complement Australia’s work in the agricultural sector and will be in partnership with the World Food Program and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation. The remaining program will include reconstruction and support of infrastructure including better water, better sanitation and rural development. Importantly, it will also include building the capacity within Iraqi institutions. We will continue to support the clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance.

When I was in Baghdad just before Christmas last year, I offered to assist the Iraqi agriculture sector through 100 agriculture scholarships for training in Australia. This was in direct response to a request from my Iraqi counterpart when I simply asked him, ‘How can we help for the future?’ The first Iraqi students in this program are due to commence language training later this year and postgraduate studies in January 2009.

Australia’s commitment in recent years to a wide range of military operations, in places as diverse as East Timor, the Solomons, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Sudan, are a reminder of the breadth of our engagement and the complexity and the danger of the world in which we live. They also remind us, as a government, that we must be clear and rigorous in our understanding of the national interests which might lead us to commit military forces to such an operation, because there is no more fundamental decision a government can make than taking Australia to war.

Getting our national security right is the first responsibility of any government. Our government is committed to ensuring that our national security arrangements are focused, coordinated and effective and that the actions of government are accountable. To that end, the government is preparing Australia’s first national security statement, which we will soon present to the parliament. It will set out a broad, comprehensive and integrated approach to our national security—an approach capable of meeting the breadth and complexity of the security challenges that our nation will face in the 21st century.

We live in a complex, highly connected and changing world, which holds great opportunities, equally great challenges and some threats for Australia. National security spans many strands of government, industry and the community. We must ensure that all the necessary sinews of this country are harnessed and coordinated to produce the most appropriate, affordable and effective national security preparations possible. Australia must also play an active, positive and energetic role in the affairs of the world and the affairs of our own region—and, where our interests are engaged, we will continue to work with allies and partners to prevent or respond to threats that undermine our national security or our collective security.

To ensure that the Commonwealth’s domestic security arrangements are as effective as possible, upon taking office the government commissioned the former Secretary of Defence to examine the better coordination of our national security arrangements. That report will be presented next month. We are also well underway with the preparation of a new Defence white paper. The white paper will take a comprehensive look at our strategic interests, our military and defence capabilities, and the arrangements we have in place to build and sustain a modern, capable Australian Defence Force. We are determined that the Australian Defence Force will remain a force able to protect Australia, and Australia’s interests, well into the future. That is why the government has committed to the forward provision of a three per cent real increase on average per annum for Defence out to 2018.

In combination, the National Security Statement, the Defence white paper and the review of Australia’s national security decision-making processes will establish the foundation for the pursuit of Australia’s long-term national interests.

Australian troops comprising Overwatch Battle Group West ceased formal operations on 1 June, and the last of our combat troops are scheduled to depart Iraq by the middle of June. They have performed magnificently in a difficult and dangerous environment and fully achieved the mission they were assigned in the finest traditions of the Australian military.

But Australia’s commitment to Iraq does not end with the departure of our combat troops. We will continue to help the people of Iraq rebuild their country in the difficult decade that lies ahead. And we will continue to work in this effort with our partners, including the United States and the United Kingdom, and the United Nations and the international community more generally. Our aim is to build a relationship with Iraq anchored in economic, training and humanitarian initiatives to help the people of Iraq so bloodied by this war and their recent history to stand on their own two feet.

Mr Speaker, I salute the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who once again have done this nation proud. The nation will have the opportunity to salute them in an official welcome home parade later this month. We commend their service to the House and the nation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to whether the member for Mayo was in fact in breach of standing order 91(f) for most of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Dr Nelson (Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 22 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the resolution but not all of that which was said by the Prime Minister. On 11 September 2001, the world changed. It changed irrevocably for many people throughout the world and for none more so than the citizens of the United States of America when 3,000 civilians, innocent people, were murdered in a terrorist attack on New York and Washington. In response to that, only a matter of days later, when our then Prime Minister, John Howard, was in Washington, the ANZUS treaty was invoked. It is a matter of record that not so long after that the United States, Australia and other countries went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power.

The heinous events of 11 September 2001 divided the lives of many Americans into two halves: that which had been lived prior to September 11 and everything that would come after. What then happened was that the United States realised that September 11 was the escalatory event of more than a decade of increasing terrorist attacks throughout the world principally but not only against America interests, from the attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 to the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, the Marriott Hotel bombing, the Russian parade ground bombing and many other incidents. By September 11, clearly that was enough.

The United States and its allies, then looking out throughout the world for where future terrorist attacks might subsequently come, looked no further than Iraq. The decision was made by the United States and the United Kingdom—both of which asked Australia to consider participation—to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It is a matter of fact that Saddam Hussein had been in breach of 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions at that time. It was known that he did have weapons of mass destruction but that he was playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors and the question was whether he still had them. In fact, there were many who argued that in fact he did still have them.

Our now Prime Minister, then the opposition foreign affairs spokesman, said on 9 September 2002:

I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.

Only three weeks later to the State Zionist Council annual assembly on 15 October 2002, he further 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, which list Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical ... biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program.

It is further a matter of fact that under Saddam Hussein over a 15-year period an average of 70,000 people were tortured, murdered and killed, including in two wars. Five thousand Kurds lost their lives in 1988 in the gassing at Halabja. Many of us would remember the photograph of the father in rigor mortis with his baby in swaddling clothes, one of the 5,000 victims that day. We also remember the attempted genocide of the Arabs in the southern marshes and arguably the greatest act of human environmental vandalism in the draining of those marshes.

All of that meant that by the early part of this decade the decision was taken that the world would indeed be a safer place without Saddam Hussein in government brutally controlling his people and that, in a post-September 11 world, the risk could not be taken that he still had weapons of mass destruction. It is equally a matter of fact that, following the removal of Saddam Hussein from office, large collections and storage of weapons of mass destruction were not found, but there have been, according to US authorities, 260 mass graves found with as many as 300,000 dead Iraqis within them.

It is easy to look back in hindsight on what has happened since the removal of Saddam Hussein. In that first year, there was the ‘deBaathification’ of the Iraqi public service, the dismantling of the Iraqi army, the provision of basic Iraqi services, principally from Western contractors—US ones in particular. Those and other things, in hindsight, would be done differently.

But none of us who live in a relatively comfortable and peaceful part of the world, who too often take for granted the things most important to us in our lives—including our freedoms, Australian citizenship and a passport—should ever forget that 12 million Iraqis risked their lives to vote and elect their own government. Since 2003, Iraqis have been the subject of terrorist attacks, and Americans and other allies have given their lives in the name of Iraqi freedom, Iraqi democracy and the values that we in Australia hold dear and for which we stand.

Our generation must understand that we are facing a resurgent totalitarianism throughout the world in the form of Islamic extremism. We are facing people that are not only virulently anti-American but committed to building a violent political utopia which denies fundamental political and religious freedoms and which has an attitude to the treatment of women which is incompatible with a civil society, much less a peaceful world. We are dealing with people who see education and the liberating power it brings to those who are oppressed as things which should be fundamentally opposed. Not only are these extremists throughout the Middle East, and not only have they done everything they possibly can to oppose Iraqi democracy and peace, but they go through North Africa, through almost all of Europe and down into South-East Asia, in our part of the world. We have responsibilities in this case to the Iraqi people, to their democratically elected government, to the nations in the region surrounding Iraq, to our key ally the United States of America, and to stand up for our fundamental values and see the job through for the Iraqi people.

I remind those who have argued for and at times sought to make political capital from withdrawal of troops from Iraq that al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s No. 2, when he wrote in July 2005 to Abu al-Zarqawi, the now deceased but then head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, to set out al-Qaeda’s agenda for Iraq, said it was: firstly, to remove the United States forces from Iraq; secondly, to build an Islamic authority and take it to the level of a caliphate; thirdly—to use his words—to take the Islamic jihad to the secular states in the region; and, fourthly, to confront the state of Israel.

We are immensely proud of what Australian troops—members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Army—have done and continue to do in Iraq on our behalf, in our name, under our flag and for our values in support of the Iraqi people and Australia’s strategic interests in the region and throughout the world.

As a matter of record it should be understood that the Overwatch Battle Group—originally the deployment of some 450 Australian troops in April 2005—was, paradoxically for some Australians, to protect Japanese engineers undertaking important civilian and military engineering projects in Al Muthanna province in central southern Iraq. As progress was made, we made the decision, at the request of the Iraqis and of US and British allies, that we would move to an overwatch posture that required us to increase the number of troops that we had deployed and change the composition to make it sufficiently robust, and that is why we opposed vehemently the notion of a phased withdrawal of combat troops, as argued by the government, then in opposition, in 2007.

Those men and women over four rotations of the battle group have performed superbly, as the Prime Minister said. We have suffered six casualties—six were wounded—and thankfully no men or women in our uniform have been killed doing overwatch operations, engaging the Iraqis locally, undertaking training of the Iraqi forces or providing security of the most robust nature should the Iraqis, whom we have been training, not be able to undertake the tasks of security themselves. The Australian Army training team has done a superb job based in Dhi Qar province, along with the operational Overwatch Battle Group in Tallil, overseeing operations in Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna and contributing to the training of what are now 33,000 Iraqi security forces that have been trained by the Australian Army.

The position of the Liberal and National parties, in government and in opposition, remains the same—that is, in all of our deployments we remain there until the job is done. That means that when the government in the country where we are deployed is confident that its own forces are able to provide for its own security then it is time for us to leave. That should always be subject to conditions on the ground. We made the decision last year, in looking to the future, that if the conditions were to be right on the ground in 2008, as they now are, then it would be appropriate to bring the battle group home but to replace it with a training capability which would of course include a force protection element. In other words, there is still much more training of the Iraqi security forces to be done, even though an enormous amount of progress has been made.

It is worth the House and Australians remembering that progress has been made in Iraq because of the leadership of the US President and his key military advisers late in 2006, making the decision for a surge of US military forces. There was significant criticism of that decision here in Australia, both in the political arena and in the commentariat. To put an additional 30,000 American troops into Iraq, into Baghdad, to take it to 20 brigade combat teams was a significant step on the part of the US President but one considered necessary to bring improvement to the security situation in Baghdad and in Iraq generally.

As a result of that, the leadership of Nouri al-Maliki and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the improvement of the provision of services and the efforts of countries like Australia and the United Kingdom and other nations in areas of Iraq outside of Baghdad, significant progress has been made. So, in al-Anbar province—which had been the home of al-Qaeda in Iraq—where in October 2006 we had 3,200 terrorist events, we now have in the order of 100 a month. We have had whole days with no terrorist incidents at all. Ramadi, Fallujah and many other areas of Iraq are areas where once an Abrams tank would have been required to go through them but where now instead there is much more order, good governance, peace and cooperation.

Australians, when they see their soldiers come back from Tallil in central southern Iraq, can be proud in the knowledge that not only have they done the job that they were asked to do but, by doing what they have in southern Iraq, they have contributed significantly to the effort which has allowed the Americans, particularly militarily in Baghdad, to do the heavy lifting which has brought significant progress in Iraq.

The battle group, which is the fourth of those that was deployed to Iraq, has engaged in many things, but we are very proud of the fact that they built the bridge at Samawah. They have assisted with veterinary clinics, ambulance facilities, electricity, roads and the refurbishment of schools and hospitals. For all of these things, as one soldier said to me at one stage during one of my visits as then Minister for Defence:

The Iraqi people seem to appreciate greatly what we are doing for them.

I might also say to Australians, who were led to believe last year that, if there were to be a change of government, Australian troops would leave Iraq, that the battle group is leaving and, were it up to us, we would be replacing it with a suitably equipped training facility for central southern Iraq, because we believe that the job still remains to be done. There remain about 1,000 Defence Force personnel across the theatre of Iraq. We have the P3 Orions, which provide essential surveillance activity, particularly over the gulf, and the frigate, which is in the gulf, as part of a task force of 10 coalition ships protecting two vital Iraqi oil terminals. We have got the security detachment in Baghdad, comprising 110 troops. We also have our C130 Hercules, which do an absolutely extraordinary job transferring equipment and our people throughout the operational theatre. We have a logistics operation. We have a joint headquarters task force. We are in the multinational forces task force. In all, we will still have about 1,000 of our men and women across the theatre of Iraq, and we are immensely proud of them.

It also ought to be remembered that Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, only last week pointed out that, as a result of all this, we are now close to the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There would have been very few—particularly very few on the government benches—who only six or 12 months ago would have even hoped that that would be the case. Thank God we have made progress. Further to that, the Simon Fraser University in Canada has documented that deaths from terrorist acts since 2001 outside of Iraq have declined 40 per cent. There are three principal reasons why we have made considerable progress globally against terrorism. The first is the battle in Afghanistan, to which we are strongly committed and should remain so for the foreseeable future. The second is that the Sunni insurgents, and in particular al-Qaeda, have attacked both Shiite and Sunni targets in Iraq and throughout the world, and the Muslim world is starting to stand up to this. The third reason is the surge in Baghdad, and the courage and determination of not only the United States but also the United Kingdom and Australia to stand by the Iraqis and to make sure that we were able to see that terrorism would not be able to take root in Iraq and that al-Qaeda would not be able to run operations within Iraq, in the region, or indeed throughout the world.

It is often said by Australians who are well-meaning that we have been lucky, that our soldiers have been lucky—and indeed there has been luck involved in this. But the reason we have not sustained the casualties of some of our allies—although there are a number—is principally because of the outstanding leadership of the men and women who lead at all levels in the Australian Defence Force. It is, secondly, the judicious planning, both militarily and at a government level, for the operations we have undertaken. Thirdly, it is the level of equipment and the nature of equipment provided to our troops, which I consider to be better than any of our allies. It is, fourthly, the training which is undertaken by Australian Defence Force personnel. Fifthly, there is something about the Australian character. In my experience, even 20-year-old privates see themselves not only as soldiers but as educators, diplomats, aid workers and teachers. If every Australian could only see them whether in Iraq or in other parts of the world they would be even more proud of them than they already are.

In concluding, I understand that there will be some sort of tickertape parade to welcome home the soldiers from Iraq. That is something which is to be supported. But I also remind the government that, yes, there have been 3,700 Australian Defence Force personnel that have served in these four Overwatch Battle Group rotations, but every Australian Defence Force person, man and woman, from each of the three services, whether they have served on a frigate, whether they have worked in dust storms in 55 degree heat trying to keep a C130 in the air, whether they have been part of a security detachment, whether they have been a military lawyer working in Baghdad—all of those men and women, whatever the task they have undertaken—should be equally recognised for the job that they have done, in our name, in our uniform, under our flag. We have made enormous progress in Iraq. There is still quite some way to go and, from our perspective, we think the job must be seen through.