Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have heard some parts of the debate this afternoon. There is an interesting contrast amongst the speakers, in some way—a significant number of conflicting views. I guess, to a degree, that makes this place go round. But, when you are discussing an issue like the motion before us, I think it is probably more constructive to make the place go round, as it were, with less shrill and less political invective and perhaps with a more considered approach to some of the issues that are on the table before us.

I did listen to the remarks of Senator Evans, as indeed did Senator Ferguson, who remarked on that himself. I was interested in the approach and tone that Senator Evans took. I listened to the conclusion of Senator Faulkner’s remarks this afternoon. I do not think I would ever be described—hopefully at least not by those making a constructive description of me—as delusional, so I am not delusional about this issue either. I, for one, am not going to stand up in this chamber and pretend that all is good in Iraq in 2006, because that is clearly not the case. There is evidence clearly to the contrary, and it has been delivered to the chamber in a range of ways this afternoon.

But one of the bigger questions that I think faces us in addition to those horrors which are on the record is: what choice do we have? What choices are we left with if we contemplate leaving Iraq to those who would now perpetrate the acts that have been described, albeit laced with invective, by some of the other speakers this afternoon? What is the choice if our government remains fully committed to the security and the stability of Iraq? Our only choice is to stay and do the job we undertook to do some years ago now. What is the choice if there is still a job to be done in Iraq? And clearly there is. The choice is not to leave. To leave now would be to abandon the Iraqi people completely to the sorts of things that Senator Faulkner was placing on the record this afternoon. That is not a choice that I am prepared to contemplate.

The Prime Minister said towards the end of last month that the path ahead in Iraq lies in accelerating as much as possible the training of the Iraqi military forces and letting them assume as much as possible of the day-to-day security responsibility. And that is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly the commitment we have made in so many places, enabling the Iraqi security forces to do the job that obviously needs to be done but that cannot be done overnight. We are trying to create a strong security force out of a debilitated military and in many cases horrifically debilitated country and community, and that does not happen simply or easily.

If you talk about a timetable for withdrawal, what are you going to do? Are you going to say, ‘By next Easter that is it—we are out of here and that is the end of the story’? It does not work like that. It works on progress—the sorts of things that Senator Faulkner was referring to so disparagingly. It strikes me as ironic that you can be that disparaging about the ability of children to attend a school as a mark of progress. It strikes me as ironic that you can talk about freedoms advanced for women in those terms and in that context, even if you do not cite them expressly, because they are part of the marks of progress to which we refer. An independent press, the capacity to pay teachers to do the job of teaching children—I will not belittle those as marks of progress as others here have this afternoon in the context of this debate.

It is true to say, and I will agree, that horrors perpetrated on the community by insurgents and terrorists are not great marks of progress. They are not. But in the overwhelming number of provinces in Iraq there is significant progress. There are children enrolled in high schools and there are schools rebuilding so they can at least physically attend them after decades of horrors were wrought on them. Are we supposed to say, ‘That is it—we are going’? I do not think that is appropriate.

Look at the role that the Australian defence forces are playing—let us look at just one: the overwatch role in Dhi Qar province, where, at the end of October, we formally took over the operational overwatch role in southern Iraq from the Italian forces. That followed the transition of security responsibility in that province to the Iraqi security forces in the previous month.

That is the second province to transfer to Iraqi control after Al Muthanna province made the transition in July. Australia’s undertaking is to continue to support the Iraqi government and its security forces until such time as they can provide for the country’s security. That is an appropriate undertaking in this course in which we are engaged.

The Overwatch Battle Group (West) comprises about 490 Australian Army personnel. It is based at the Imam Ali Air Base in Tallil and it conducts the operational overwatch task for both Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces. Those troops are required to provide support to the Iraqi security forces in a crisis if they are requested to do so by the Iraqi government, running their own business in that case, and the Multinational Force Iraq. That involvement is, of course, also subject to Australian government approval. The ADF will continue training Iraqi army personnel at the basic training centre in Tallil.

What frustrates me most is that, if you come to the debate sensibly and intelligently, I do not understand how you can say now, in December 2006, that because there are still significant problems—as there always have been with the building and creation of nations in the history of the world—it is appropriate for us to consider withdrawing. I do not understand how you can say that it is appropriate for us to disparage progress because it is undermined by some defeats.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion (Senator Allison’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.