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

Today when we look at the nation of Iraq we see a nation in the middle of a significant transformation—a transformation after decades of neglect, corruption and oppression by a brutal regime. How and whether or not we act now will determine whether that transformation can be one to a nation that can stand up and move forward. It is vital in the context of this debate, and in the view of the Australian government, that Australian troops remain in Iraq to secure and protect that reconstruction process. No-one pretends that it is a simple task or a small challenge, but it is one that we are prepared to meet where we can.

In contrast to previous speakers—excepting, of course, my colleague Senator Sandy Macdonald—I want to acknowledge some of the very important things that the Australian government, our troops and our representatives in Iraq are actually doing. As the head of the national coordination for provincial reconstruction teams, US General Eric Olson, retired, is reported in the Bulletin magazine of last week as saying:

A withdrawal would be devastating for a province like Dhi Qar—

one of the provinces where Australia is present—

The US has decided that it does not operate in Dhi Qar anymore because it has gone under provincial Iraqi control. If it weren’t for the Australian Army, I couldn’t have a provincial reconstruction team here and we’d lose all influence and virtually all presence here.

That is a pretty clear statement about the role that the Australian presence plays in Iraq right now.

The Iraqi government itself has only been in office for just over 10 months. It is operating in an extraordinarily difficult security environment, but that government is endeavouring to work for the improvement of the Iraqi people. It is managing a range of issues like security, political and economic challenges, national reconciliation and reconstruction. In that context, the assistance of governments like Australia’s comes at the request of the Iraqi government. It is endorsed by UN Security Council resolution 1723. Our commitment is contributing to the security, the stability, the reconstruction and the rehabilitation of Iraq—and it is a commitment from which we do not intend to walk away.

What is clear is that, if the coalition were to withdraw precipitously, it would embolden terrorists everywhere—not just in Iraq. It would damage the global fight against terrorism. Most importantly, as far as I am concerned, it would abandon Iraqis—70 per cent of whom chose to vote and to exercise a democratic right, which we hold so precious, in their elections in December 2005. I cannot countenance that abandonment and I cannot agree with the proposition that we would help the Iraqis by leaving.

If you examine it critically, you see that the security situation for those in the two provinces of Anbar and Baghdad—where 54 per cent of the violence is occurring—is absolutely devastating. Has that been mentioned in the chamber this afternoon by those who speak in support of this matter and others? I do not think so. It is an important statistic that gets left out of the reporting time and time again.

Our commitment to Operation Catalyst in Iraq and more broadly in the Middle East includes the Australian Joint Task Force Headquarters of about 70 personnel; a security detachment of about 110 personnel, including ASLAVs, providing both protection and escort for government personnel who work in our embassy in Baghdad; and the Overwatch Battle Group West, based in the southern Iraqi province of Dhi Qar, which comprises around 520 personnel, a headquarters, a cavalry squadron, an infantry company, ASLAVs and Bushmaster vehicles.

The men and women involved in that job are extraordinary Australians doing an extraordinary job. The timetable for withdrawal of those people should be based on conditions on the ground, as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have said, not on arbitrary calendar dates. No-one who says that we should withdraw or that we should pursue other options, including some of those discussed here today, is able to draw a picture of where that leaves the Iraqis. Day to day, where does that leave them? Does it leave everything to militants and terrorists, whose only desire is to bring down any foreseeable democratic process in that country? Is that what we are supposed to do? Is that the alternative with which we are left? I think not.

Our troops have a very important role in training and supporting the Iraqi security forces—previously in Al Muthanna and now in Dhi Qar province. We have recently announced an additional 70 trainers to help rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi security forces, but we cannot take our eye off the main goal of that military commitment: it is a sustainable transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis. It is about progression for Iraq.

In terms of the humanitarian focus to which this matter of public importance refers, it is not possible—in my view, in the view of many commentators and in the view of the government—to pursue a strong humanitarian focus without security. That is why our role is so important. I go back to the words of General Eric Olson, which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. Our contribution has been in humanitarian terms—from immediate humanitarian needs early after 2003, towards reconstruction in the agriculture sector, in water and sanitation, in food supply and distribution, in human rights, and in law and order. A large part of that commitment has been provided through multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the UN, which have proven operations in Iraq.

I think we should acknowledge it. I think we should talk about it more. I think we should let the Australian people know more about the importance of that focus, and about its importance to the humanitarian advancement of Iraqis. There are some real success stories in all of that, because work has been able to be carried out, particularly in areas where security has been addressed. Services have been restored in large areas of Iraq, despite repeated acts of sabotage by terrorists who seek to undermine the reconstruction.

In terms of basic health services, in 2005 alone emergency campaigns immunised 98 per cent of one- to five-year-olds against measles, mumps and rubella—something we take completely for granted in Australia—and 97 per cent of children under five against polio. We have been training staff at community based health centres, in conjunction with the international effort. More than 600 primary health care centres have been provided with ‘clinic in a box’ kits of key equipment and furniture, and 2,500 primary health care workers have been trained to expand the availability of essential primary health care services to children under five. In the agriculture sector where we work, we have done extraordinary things in training in the safe use of pesticides to help develop agriculture.

I can do little better than conclude with the words of one our soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Quoted in the Bulletin article was Major Jason Harley, an Australian CIMIC officer, who said:

I personally think Southern Iraq can be a success story. Nation-building is a big strategic operation and civilians do it a lot better than we do, but there can’t be any reconstruction if there’s no security. We’re here to facilitate that, but at the end of the day we’ll need to transition out and the civilians can come in for full reconstruction.

That is from a person doing the job on the ground. (Time expired)