Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to support a parliamentary debate during the current sitting on the Australian Government’s strategy in response to the crisis in Syria and Iraq.

For over a year, Labor have offered bipartisan support for Australia’s involvement in the defence of Iraq. We agreed that responding to the call of the Iraqi government to protect its people and its territory from the evil Daesh was the right thing to do. From the beginning, along with this support, we have called for greater involvement and scrutiny by this parliament. On 9 September, Labor again called for the government to outline to the parliament its long-term strategy in Iraq and Syria and allow for proper parliamentary debate.

In 1991, parliament was specifically recalled for two days to debate the first Iraq war. All 150 members of the House of Representatives spoke. In 2003, Australia’s commitment to Iraq was again subject to significant debate in parliament. In that debate, the member for Curtin said:

… it behoves this parliament to consider the likelihood that the military action will be over quickly and the Iraqi regime that has so traumatised its own citizenry will be abandoned and in flight. What next? What does the future hold for a liberated Iraq?

We could ask a very similar question about Syria today. If Daesh is degraded and defeated, as we all hope it will be, and Assad himself is gone—again, as we all hope—what is next for the future of Syria? In 2015, as we have military forces once again deployed in Iraq and now also in Syrian airspace, the foreign minister should once again support that same parliamentary consideration she praised in 2003.

Today we see geopolitical complexity that is even more finely balanced, and the long-term strategic outcomes are even less predictable. Russia has dramatically escalated its involvement in Syria, yet its strikes to date appear more targeted at anti-Assad rebel forces than Daesh. The Russian air force’s use of cluster munitions and its rules of engagement risk civilian casualties in great numbers. Despite an increasing number of countries entering the conflict to attack Daesh, Daesh continues to control large areas of territory in both Iraq and Syria. The Syrian rebel forces themselves are proliferating and radicalising, leaving fewer moderate partners for a future inclusive Syrian national government.

The Iraqi government is increasingly reliant on Iran’s active support, a concerning trend for Australia’s longstanding objective to support a non-sectarian, inclusive government in Iraq. Without a clear and realistic strategy, we are talking about the potential for the consolidation of redrawn national borders, the intensification of sectarian violence, the escalation of geopolitical tension and increasing numbers of displaced people in the region and beyond.

Against this backdrop of heightened uncertainty, the Australian public deserve a clear outline of the strategy for our personnel who are being placed in harm’s way. Yet the messages that we receive are often mixed. The government has said that the objective and, indeed, legal basis for Australian air strikes in Syria is the collective self-defence of Iraq. And yet the foreign minister has also said that Australia’s involvement in Syria would be complete:

When the terrorist organisation is prevented from carrying out attacks on the civilian populations in Syria and Iraq.

The government has talked in the past about the illegitimacy of the Assad regime, which has killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Yet, on 25 September, The Australian newspaper reported that the foreign minister’s position had changed and that Assad was now ‘part of the solution’.

Labor remain prepared to support a strategic plan which will address the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria. But we need to know what it is, and, more particularly, the Australian public deserve to know. They are entitled to hear the debate in this parliament which would answer these long-term questions and to know how this increasingly complex scenario will be resolved, in the government’s view.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most Australians would acknowledge that the terrorists in Iraq and Syria known as ISIL or Daesh are causing unspeakable harm to individuals, families and communities. Their barbarity has shocked the world. Daesh is trying to entrench itself in the Middle East and export its barbarous mayhem. The murder of Curtis Cheng on 2 October is the latest confirmation that the tentacles of resurgent terrorism have again reached Australia.

There have been many other disrupted attacks and actual attacks, and they are coming closer together. Warning times are reducing and, sadly, the perpetrators are getting younger. We have seen Australian suicide bombers in the Middle East. Over 120 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, a further 30 Australians have been killed and close to 160 people in Australia are actively supporting terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. The fact that ASIO is undertaking 400 high-priority investigations indicates that there are many others at home that we need to be concerned about.

The point that I am seeking to make is that our fight against resurgent terrorism is as much a matter of domestic security as international security. That is why Australia is playing its part in the international coalition to disrupt, degrade and, ultimately, defeat Daesh. Our strategy has three pillars. First of all, we are using the military dimension of our national power to support the government of Iraq's response to the terrorist threat. We do this by training the Iraqi army and by striking Daesh targets with our Air Task Group. Secondly, we are applying the diplomatic dimension of our national power to advocate for political solutions. That includes supporting the efforts of UN envoy de Mistura and encouraging Syria and Russia to play a constructive role. Thirdly, we are responding to the pressing humanitarian needs generated by this conflict. Not only is this the right thing to do but it helps reinforce Australia's reputation as a good global citizen and prevents the refugee camps from becoming hotbeds of radicalisation.

With our Canadian, Turkish, American and Arab state partners, we are striking Daesh capabilities in both Iraq and Syria because we know that they cannot be defeated in Iraq alone. By limiting Daesh's freedom of manoeuvre and their ability to command, reinforce and sustain their murderous activities, we do support the collective self-defence of Iraq. Perhaps more importantly, we also subdue Daesh's narrative of success. Their failure to establish a so-called caliphate from western Syria to eastern Iraq is a powerful counter to their totemic appeal and ability to recruit, particularly amongst young people. Every time one of their brutal figureheads is killed, their territory is reduced or their freedom of action is curtailed, Daesh's aspiration for world domination are further exposed as a ridiculous pipedream.

So we have a strategy—and, I thought, a settled bipartisan strategy. Strategy is for the longer term. As someone who served on Australia's first deployment to Afghanistan in 2001, and as our first national commander in southern Iraq in 2005, our troops expect our strategy to be for the longer term. So I am puzzled by the call for another debate. Why would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition call for yet more debate on what was a settled bipartisan strategy? Who else speaks out against Australia's military contribution to the coalition in Iraq and Syria? The answer is that the loudest opponents are the Greens and the members of Labor's left faction, of which the member for Sydney is a prominent leader. So let's call this motion for what it is: a political bone designed to appease the hard-left members of the Labor left faction and their fellow travellers in the Greens party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections, but it is puzzling that the member for Sydney and her colleagues were not speaking up about national security when they were acting to cut defence spending to the lowest level since 1938. We apparently have debates only when it suits the member for Sydney.

Our troops in Iraq and Syria are putting their lives on the line. They need a parliament that backs a strategy for the long-term and with resolve. They will find this sort of ideological dog-whistling about strategy to the Labor left as a bitter pill indeed. I say to the member for Sydney, this is not about military strategy but about her 'kill Bill' strategy, which requires points of differentiation— (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To return to reality, when Russia entered the Syrian civil war, Australia's Foreign Minister said that Russia's involvement in negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program had been positive, and:

If we use that as an example of Russia's preparedness to be part of a solution rather than part of the problem, then we can have some optimism that Russia's involvement is positive.

As the pattern of bombing of non-Daesh targets—just mentioned by the member for Bass—is established, these comments look more and more silly. The foreign minister has mimicked the false dichotomy put out by Russia and Iran that the West has to choose between Daesh and Assad. To argue in favour of a dictator who has murdered 200,000 of his own people is unethical—and it will never work.

Russia's intervention on the side of Iran and Hezbollah cements in place Iran's Shiite crescent from Lebanon, through Syria and Iraq, to Iran. How is this in the Australian national interest? It is just one of the reasons why the Australian government must debate this sudden pro-Iranian shift in parliament. According to news reports, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Syria are, at this moment, about to begin a massive ground offensive against their non-Daesh enemies in Syria. Qasem Soleimani, the viceroy who commands the Iranian forces in Syria, is coordinating this ground offensive. Normally the Australian government would have said something. Now? Nothing.

Since the one-sided deal with Iran, the foreign minister has re-imagined Iran as the region's saviour. This is idiotic and must be debated in this parliament. Since 1979, Iran has sponsored terrorism in almost every Arab country, as well as in Israel, South America, Europe and Asia. Instead of shunning Iran, our foreign minister, in April, when she became the first western foreign minister to visit Iran in years, says: 'Trade with us. Take our unwanted refugees. Open consulates. Let's share intelligence!' In the last fortnight, however, when Iraq, Iran, Russia and Syria announced an intelligence-sharing centre based in Baghdad, US Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Work said:

We were caught by surprise that Iraq entered into this agreement with Syria and Iran and Russia. Obviously, we are not going to share intelligence with either Syria or Russia or Iran.

Normally the Australian government would have said something—but again they did not.

The foreign minister must also explain the legalities to this House. Under autonomous sanctions legislation, Australia is not allowed to provide Iran, Syria or any of these countries with 'technical advice, assistance or training if it assists or is provided in relation to a military activity.' I remind the government that Hezbollah, which is founded, funded, armed and trained by Iran, is proscribed by the Australian parliament. When concerned foreign ministers gathered in Paris back in June to discuss how to handle Daesh, it was our foreign minister who embarrassed us by suggesting that they should be involved in the US led coalition. It was a suggestion immediately dismissed by all the other western foreign ministers.

Last week, an emboldened Iran fired off ballistic missiles capable of carrying warheads—in flagrant violation of UN sanctions. The US described it as 'a complete violation' and condemned it utterly. Normally Australia would have said something—but again we were silent. In August an adviser on international affairs to the Speaker of the Iranian parliament said:

Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate goal.

Australia in the past would normally have repudiated the Iranians. Instead we were shamefully silent.

Nothing the foreign minister says about the alleged benefits of cooperation with Iran is worth the dangers to Australian citizens of opening Iranian consulates in Sydney or Melbourne. If she wants intelligence, the foreign minister should just google 'Hezbollah, Iran and Argentina' or—instead of Argentina—Thailand, Lebanon, Singapore, Bulgaria, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. In all of these places, Hezbollah has carried out or attempted to carry out terrorist attacks using the diplomatic cover provided by Iranian embassies and consulates to advance their shared poisonous ideology. Interpol has issued arrest warrants for senior Iranian officials. It is inimical to Australia's national security to allow Iran to establish a network along those lines in Australia.

We have no reasonable assurance that Iran is moving to stop its support of international terrorism. The government has become an unwitting, incompetent facilitator aiding and abetting the Iranian agenda. The foreign minister has been played for a fool and is clearly out of her depth. We need, as the member for Sydney said, a full debate on these matters.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This private member's motion is about the crisis in Syria and Iraq. The one organisation that unites both those countries is Daesh, so let us keep the eye on the ball and focus on Daesh, which is the threat to both the Middle East and countries around the world. Daesh are the ones exporting terror to Australia, Europe and other countries.

At the recent by-election, the people of Canning expressed to me that they were very concerned about the growing threat of Daesh to Australian security. They want resolve. They want policy that deals with this group, whose aims, methods and world view are inimical to the Australian way of life. So they are not to be taken lightly. Australians expect this government to approach this threat with clear eyes, resolve and coherent policy. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are doing just that.

The member for Bass outlined the current contribution of both diplomatic and military power to the strategy against Daesh, and they were settled upon in a bipartisan spirit. Our ADF has been deployed within this agreed-upon framework. So why are we still talking about this? This is a time for action; it is not a time for flip-flopping, it is not a time for hand-wringing and it is not a time for double-mindedness. The Prime Minister and the foreign minister are very single-minded about this strategy. As the member for Bass outlined, it is about disrupting, degrading and defeating ISIS. We are disrupting them with regular air strikes conducted by our Air Force. We are denying them freedom of action on the ground. We are degrading their command and control. We are degrading their logistics and their moral and material support.

Ultimately Daesh will be defeated by Iraqi forces led by the Iraqi government. We are building partner capacity, with an ADF contribution comprised of Australian regular forces and Special Operations Command. We are training Iraqi troops and counter-terrorism forces. The strategy is very clear. Those three words summarise it very nicely: disrupt, degrade, defeat. Within that there is operational and tactical flexibility. The ADF are pragmatic and they will work it out themselves. We are also conducting strikes in Syria under Iraq's mandate for collective self-defence. We are also contributing to the humanitarian crisis. Since 2011 we have contributed $230 million, and we have just offered places for 12,000 Syrian refugees in this country.

So the strategy is in place and it is working. But, ultimately, like with all wars, the solution must finally be a political one. Our military actions at present are creating space for political dialogue. Ultimately, we want an inclusive, nonsectarian Iraqi government. So why are we now talking about change? The Australian people and the Australian Defence Force expect a strategy that is both long-term and coherent and that gives them clear guidelines for their operational and tactical actions, and I believe that is in place.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Share it with us.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have. So now is the time to move forward behind the current government. ISIS is a grave threat. They have a stronghold in Iraq and Syria. But the threat is spreading. As we saw on 2 October, with the execution of Curtis Cheng, now is not the time to take a backward step. These people are opposed to fundamental morality, to fundamental international law. They do not respect states; they do not respect governments. I ask members opposite: have you seen the videos that these people disseminate around the world via social media? I have, and I am very, very clear-eyed about the threat that Daesh pose to both the Middle East and the West. As you are well aware, when those 20 Coptic Christians were murdered on the beach in Libya, Daesh made it very clear their aims are beyond the Middle East.

Currently we are attacking Daesh with a root-and-branch strategy. We are fighting them in the Middle East, and our domestic counter-terrorism agencies are also taking care of the branches. We have 120 Australians currently supporting or fighting Daesh in the Middle East, and in the last year we have contributed more than $600 million to providing counter-terrorism agencies within Australia with the funding to do their job and protect the Australian people.

Debate adjourned.