Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are times when an image cuts through the noise and haste of life and speaks directly to our core beliefs and values. The image of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy whose lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach, has done just that. That image had the power to stop and arrest us, and I know there would not be a person in this place who was not moved by that tragic, pathetic scene. I also know that the image resonated in my electorate of Eden-Monaro, and many people have contacted me to voice their views. It is for those good people of Eden-Monaro that I rise today to articulate my strong support for the actions the Australian government has taken with respect to Iraq, Syria and the ongoing conflict and refugee crisis.

I would like to outline three key elements of Australia's response to events in the Middle East—firstly, our response to the refugee crisis, borne of the Syrian civil war and the emergence of the Islamic State, or Daesh, whichever name you wish to use. Secondly, I will speak to Australia's ongoing commitment to the work with our coalition partners to degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. Finally, I would like to outline my thoughts as to why it is important for Australia to do both these things. Last week the Australian government announced a generous, prudent and proportionate package of assistance in response to the Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian crisis. I will remind the House that this package comprised a total of 12,000 humanitarian visas to be made available for those who have been displaced by conflicts in Syria and Iraq. This is above and beyond our existing humanitarian program of 13,750, which will rise to 18,750 in 2018-19. Additionally, we announced an increase in humanitarian assistance to 240,000 displaced people affected by the conflict in Syria and Iraq, at a cost of $44 million. It is important to point out that Australia's humanitarian program is global and non-discriminatory. This means that people will be selected for resettlement not on the basis of their religion, sect or ethnicity but, rather, according to the nature of their individual claims for protection. It follows, therefore, that many of these refugees will be drawn from persecuted ethnic and religious minorities.

We all need to step up and offer assistance. Some analysts say that the sheer volume of people movements we are seeing is unprecedented since World War II. The response will require the support of all Australian governments and a great many of our community organisations. I am pleased to note that in my home state of New South Wales Premier Mike Baird has welcomed this generous and bold response. Similarly, I have spoken with and have been contacted by many people from within our community in Eden-Monaro. Their expressions of support and goodwill inspire me. Their generosity of spirit and their kindness have warmed my heart.

I know there are some in our community who have reservations about our response. I can assure those people that all candidates for resettlement in our community will be required to meet all criteria for a protection visa, including health and security checks. We have taken this decision following a careful consideration by the National Security Committee of Cabinet. Of course the scale of dislocation of people in Syria and the unfolding crisis in the Mediterranean requires a strong and immediate response, but I would remind the House and my community in Eden-Monaro that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic image of Aylan Kurdi's lifeless body on a Turkish beach. We are moved by it but we have rededicated ourselves to acting quickly and decisively. Australia commenced the resettlement of Syrians in 2011 and 2012. Since that time, over 3,300 humanitarian visas have been granted to Syrians, principally under this government.

That brings me to the second element of Australia's response, and that is our security response. Australia has acted with the United States and our coalition partners in response to the emergence of Daesh and their impact on the Syrian civil war. Last week, the government took the decision to extend military action against Daesh in eastern Syria. It is important to understand that this decision is about Iraq and not about the survival of the Assad regime in Syria. We are acting with the United States and our coalition partners as part of the collective self-defence of Iraq and at the request of that country. As to the commitment itself, it will remain within its current parameters. We have deployed approximately 900 personnel, and about 400 of those are involved in air operations. We have deployed six Hornet aircraft, an air refueller and a Wedgetail command and control aircraft. Approximately 300 of our regular Army forces are training Iraqi regular forces in Taji and approximately 200 of our Special Forces are training Iraqi counter-terrorism units. This is an important contribution to the collective self-defence of Iraq.

In September last year the government of Iraq conveyed a request to the United Nations Security Council for the US led international coalition to assist by extending its operations to Daesh controlled areas beyond Iraq's borders. This decision and this commitment has a strong grounding in international law. As the Attorney-General laid out last week, the principle of collective self-defence may extend to interventions beyond the borders of a requesting state, in this case Iraq, if four conditions are met. First, the requesting state must be subject to, or be imminently at risk of, armed attacks from elements based beyond its borders. Second, there must be no effective means reasonably available to address those attacks other than the use of force. Third, the host state, in this case Syria, must have demonstrated that it is unwilling or unable to restrain attacks emanating from within its borders. Finally, the state under attack must have requested the assistance of other states to defend itself. All four of these conditions have been satisfied. The same legal principle that supported Australia's original acceptance of Iraq's request for international assistance, collective self-defence, is equally applicable to the expanded air warfare against Daesh forces beyond the Iraqi border. But it is not simply that which is legally grounded that informs the government's decisions with respect to national security. Our interests and values are paramount in our decision making.

That brings me to my final point, and that is why we are engaged in this region and in this conflict. Our interests in the region are clear; so too are our interests in bringing this conflict to an end and easing the suffering. The consequences of ongoing conflict for a region already facing massive demographic, economic and social challenges—coupled with the weakening of international order, which the Foreign Minister spoke of earlier in the year—all justify an Australian role in the efforts to address the Iraqi-Syrian crisis. The corrosive effects upon sovereignty and social harmony of mass population movements and the enhanced lethality of terrorism linked to jihadist elements are a threat to us. The conflict poses threats to Lebanon, Israel and Jordan, countries with whom Australia and Australians have long enjoyed strong connections. It challenges international norms and instruments Australia has been instrumental in achieving and sustaining—notably, the chemical weapons convention signed in 1993. It is damaging to Australian efforts to encourage governments to control the transfer of lightweight anti-aircraft weapons to non-state actors.

But the scale of human suffering and the behaviour of the conflicting parties offends the values we hold and would wish to be respected in the Middle East and throughout the world.

I know there are those, particularly those who identify as international relations realists, who would argue that our interests are not engaged. I know there are those who dismiss non-material factors like values. I fundamentally disagree with them. I think this is a restrictive reading of what international relations realism and an overly narrow conception of what interest is. So-called arch realist Henry Kissinger made just this point. He said:

If history teaches anything, it is that there can be no peace without equilibrium and no justice without restraint. But I believed equally that no nation could face or even define its choices without a moral compass that set a course through the ambiguities of reality and thus made sacrifices meaningful.

Every government sets itself the task to define its strategic interests, but these interests do not, in and of themselves, provide the moral compass that Kissinger says allows us to set a course through the ambiguities of reality.

The human suffering wrought by conflicts such as we now see in Iraq and Syria challenge those narrowly defined interests and present us with the most fundamental questions: who are we, what kind of people are we, what do we expect of the world and what does the world expect of us? Australia is a good global citizen. Australia is an important global citizen. Our interests are engaged in Iraq and Syria, and our values are offended. It is right that we should craft a security response along with a humanitarian response to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:01 .