Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened to a few speeches today and I must say that there is a common thread coming through from the Labor government. They have all been picking up on their leader’s, the Prime Minister’s, style of speaking. It is just so full of rhetoric. The previous speaker, Senator Lundy, who is well known in that department, surpassed herself today. She filled in her last five minutes with circular praise of her own government. It was all full of rhetoric. I beg the government, conceding that you won the last election: get down and govern and stop the rhetoric and the commissions and the new statutory authorities and the committees. Just get down and govern. You do not need the rhetoric anymore. You can leave that to oppositions, if you like. There is a definite common thread. Not from you, Senator Sherry, because you have served in previous governments. You get down to the nitty-gritty. You are that sort of person. I do not like to eat into my own time because I do have a set speech here, but I had to make the point on air to anyone listening to the previous speaker that Labor government speakers have got up one after another and just simply espoused rhetoric that their own leader would be proud of. I make that point.

In my address to the Senate today, I would like to say that it is now some five years to the month since a coalition of the willing led by the United States armed forces, in which Australia was of course included, began an offensive into Iraq with the aim of toppling the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. This pre-emptive strike in March 2003 against a regime which not only had harboured terrorists but had involved itself in terrorist activity was undertaken in the height of the atmosphere of the early days of the war on terror. The Senate will clearly recall the shock of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre where some 3,000 people were killed in the most horrifying circumstances, Australians included. And of course there were the October 2002 Bali bombings where some 202 lives were lost. The majority of those were Australian.

It is true to say that the war on terror is now receiving less media attention and that there is less social angst here in Australia and even fewer successful terrorist attacks in Indonesia where we suffered our worst attack against Australians predominantly because of the policy of pre-emption against terrorist activities and cells and of course the laws that were put in place that have armed our security forces to act in the interests of our citizens.

Ironically, though, it is fair to say that while all this has occurred—and it is a very good place to be—nevertheless the war is no weaker in its intensity and purpose. Ironically, the level of combat in Afghanistan today is as great and as precarious as it was at the beginning, in 2001, when the offensive was led against the Taliban regime. In the other theatre of war, Iraq, it is true to say that the stakes have always been very high in winning that war and establishing a free and democratic nation. The former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, put it succinctly in 2006:

... global terrorism is so anxious to stop us in Iraq and Afghanistan—because if they succeed in that then they stop the possibility of democracy taking the place of religious fanaticism in these countries. Whereas if we succeed and if democracy takes root in Iraq and Afghanistan then I think, after that, global terrorism is on a downhill path.

Further, the consequences of a democratic Iraq will mean democracy does work in the Arab world and it will set undercurrents throughout the whole of the Middle East for greater freedoms and fair democratic elections in a region ruled by oppressors and dictators.

It has been in this time of democratic transition that the insurgents have most fanatically tried to whip up a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites to head off the path of democracy. But no fear, no threat and no bloodshed has halted the people of Iraq’s desire for democracy. Just look how far the people of Iraq have come. In around January 2005, 8.5 million Iraqis, under the serious threat of violence, came out to vote for an interim government. Some 10 months later, 10 million people took part in a vote on a referendum. Several months later, 12 million people, or 75 per cent of the eligible voters, came out to vote for a national assembly—a parliament. In that span of 12 months there had been three elections, each one bigger than the one before, and there can be no doubt of the Iraqi people’s rejection of the insurgents’ mad ideology. They want to win against the insurgents and the terrorists.

While there have been many dim days, particularly in the latter part of 2005 and in 2006, when it seemed that the terrorists were unstoppable and were really doing serious damage against the fledgling democracy in Iraq, it is now true to say that the worst periods of blood and terror in Iraq seem to be over, at least in terms of frequency. But we are quite often reminded of the depths of evil that the terrorists will stoop to. Just one month ago or thereabouts we all saw on the news services the marketplace that was bombed in one of the worst killing sprees in Iraq. Hundreds of women and children were gathered there and some 100-plus were killed. Two mentally disabled women—they had Down syndrome—had bombs strapped to them, probably unbeknownst to them, because the bombs were triggered from afar. That is the depth that terrorists will go to—to use people in such a way in a terrorist act and indiscriminately blow up marketplaces.

Nevertheless the worst may well be behind the country. The progress can be measured in three benchmarks: firstly, the strengthening of the democratic processes; secondly, security of the Iraqi people; and, thirdly, the diminishing activity of the terrorists. Without doubt, the tactical change in combating the insurgents, called the ‘surge’, which commenced in full in June 2007, where extra United States troops—I believe around 30,000—were sent to Iraq to quell the increase in terrorist attacks, has been the turning point from those very dark days of late 2005 and 2006. Stability is now within reach; security in the worst areas like Baghdad has improved greatly. According to US military figures, monthly attacks have decreased by 60 per cent since June 2007 and are now at the same levels as they were in around 2004. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 per cent since a year ago. From January to December 2007 sectarian attacks decreased some 90 per cent in the Baghdad districts. Over the past year thousands of extremists in Iraq have been captured or killed, including hundreds of al-Qaeda leaders and operatives.

So it is worth noting that the improved security situation in Iraq has come not just from the surge provided by the United States but from a growing Iraqi security force that grew by over 100,000 in 2007 and now stands at half a million. As never before, concerned locals citizen groups have sprung up in the neighbourhoods volunteering to support security. There are some 80,000 members of this semi-militia group. But, along with these security improvements, equally encouraging, if not inspiring, to this step forward in security are the parliamentary improvements—the democratic improvements.

In a recent report Condoleezza Rice said:

In Iraq, the presence and role of the US and our coalition partners have been authorised by UN resolutions. The current UN authorisation expires at the end of this year, and Iraq has indicated that it will not seek an extension. It would rather have an arrangement more in line with what typically governs the relationships between two sovereign nations.

She went on to say:

There is little doubt that 2008 will be a year of critical transition in Iraq as our force levels continue to come down, as our mission changes and as Iraqis continue to assert their sovereignty. But to continue the success we have seen in recent months, the Iraqi people and government will continue to need our help. Iraqis have requested a normalized relationship with us, and such a relationship will be part of a foundation of success in Iraq—a foundation upon which future U.S. administrations can build.

Australia has been at the forefront of building that success. Australia has contributed in a most valuable fashion. Around 1,000 Australian Defence Force personnel have carried out, and are still carrying out, vital activities in Iraq. They are engaged in coalition efforts to train the Iraqi army and coastal defence forces; ADF air traffic controllers support coalition air operations; reconnaissance and transport aircraft further support coalition tasks; and our Navy continues to patrol the waters around Iraq. ADF personnel also guard the Australian representative office in Baghdad, thereby allowing our diplomats to carry out vital duties.

This is the report card on Iraq. It is very encouraging. The part played by our armed forces is a proud achievement. It is indeed a proud achievement for our country to believe in a cause and to meet and fight the terrorists front-on, to help establish democracy and to help a people who want democracy established. It has not been easy; it has been testing, but we have stayed the course. Having said that—having heard the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, in the House the other day trumpeting and smarting on the recent announcement of pulling out some 515 troops from the Overwatch Battle Group—the grounds on which it was announced that the troops were pulling out are disappointing and even shameful.

We all know that that particular battle group of personnel had in fact done their job and reached a point where a decision had to be made. There were several options: to redeploy, to redeploy some of them, or to bring them all home. The point I want to make is that, while any government would have confronted that decision, the foreign minister smarted on the reasons they should come home: that they should never really have gone, it was never a just cause and they should not even be there helping the Iraqi people establish a democracy. That is basically what he was trumpeting. In his view, the purpose in the beginning, and the end, was never justified. I would say to the new government that they have let down the very service personnel who were sent to serve there—who sought to do their job for a good cause and who have had to put themselves in harm’s way—by totally belittling the reason they were there in the first place. Those that served are entitled to better. They are entitled to better from a foreign minister, a position that requires smart words not a belittling of the force.

This has similarities to the Vietnam pullout—I will not say it is as bad or as dramatic, but all the trumpeting and smarting of why our troops ought to be pulled off the front line are still there and still deep rooted in the Labor Party. They have never understood what is going on in Iraq. I have just given you a report card on the Iraqi situation and it is a growing success. As a country, we ought to be proud of it and we ought not to belittle those that have served there. Instead, the government has reinforced all the prejudices that the Labor Party bring to making decisions in regard to our defence forces and all the suspicions that they cannot stay the course, will not stay the course, on the war on terror. They have completely missed the point.

Debate interrupted.