Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion of Senator Siewert that parliamentary approval should be required before Australian forces are deployed in Syria. I had the opportunity to listen to Senator Ludlam's contribution on this, as was his right to make, but he moved beyond that particular topic. I was very interested to hear his contribution. Nobody would have any argument at all with the motives expressed by Senator Ludlam—and that is that, in the case of Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region that are in the midst of such turmoil, of course we need to be trying to move towards a circumstance initially at least where there would be protection zones where civilians can be protected, can gather and can be the recipients of aid and where those providing them with that aid themselves can be safe, eventually moving towards a longer term peace in that region. But we are not in that situation yet. What we do in the meantime?

I had the opportunity of being at the United Nations from the period of September to December 2013 when Australia was a member of the Security Council. I had the opportunity to participate in both open and closed meetings of the Security Council. At that time President Obama was doing everything he could with his government to achieve a resolution with the Assad regime other than a military one. I vividly recall an interchange between the Russian Ambassador to the UN and the American Ambassador to the UN. The allegation was made at that time that chemical weapons were being used. President Obama said to his Secretary of State that a line in the sand existed and that, if chemical weapons were used, it would cause a change in the policy of the US in that region, having regard for the fact that there was a strong incentive and desire on the part of all parties to try to reach a peaceful resolution. The American ambassador made the comment that the chemical weapons were being used by the Assad regime. The retort by the other side was, No, no, no. It's not the Assad regime that is using the chemical weapons; it is their opponents.' I will never forget the startlingly obvious comment by the US ambassador when she said, 'Yes, that makes a lot of sense! Those opposed to Assad have broken through the lines of the Assad regime. They have broken into the military storage. They have found the chemical weapons. They have loaded them onto delivery systems. They have fired them. Then they have rushed back to wait to be the recipients of these chemical weapons.' Her derision was so prescient.

I have no difficulty at all with the motives—and I concur with them—expressed by Senator Ludlam. It should always be our objective—and it is the objective of all parties—to find a resolution to this conflict. But subsequent even to the time I spoke of in October 2013 we have had ISIS, or Daesh, active in this region—Iraq and Syria. That has added a totally new and different dimension to this conflict.

If you reflect on the fact that, as I understand it, President Assad is a dentist—it is my understanding that he studied and qualified in the United Kingdom; his wife is British—one would have hoped that a person of that background, with the influence around him, may well have been amenable to some sort of persuasion to find a non-military solution.

I do not know how many in this chamber have had the opportunity to meet with, spend time with and live with Syrian people. I have only had a very limited opportunity of some three or four months, when I hosted a group of agricultural scientists from Syria in 2003. I found these people to be thoroughly decent, highly-qualified, conservative and respectful. I remember showing them agriculture in the Eastern Wheatbelt, at Merredin, and telling them somewhat proudly that agriculture had been practised on this farm for some hundred years. Dr Mohamed Tarabein came up to me—a man who looked a bit like a great big basset hound—and said, 'Dr Chris, agriculture in my country of Syria has been practised in the same area for 2,000 years.' He wanted me to know the depth of their civilisation and culture. They are a proud people, they are a professional people and they do not deserve what is happening to them at this time.

Whilst I acknowledge, recognise and agree with the sentiments of the previous speaker, in terms of our demand and need to protect civilians, to find protection zones and to coalesce them into areas of safety for civilians and aid workers, until such time as we get to that stage I believe that we, as one of the world's leading developed countries, have no option other than to play our part in countering and trying to bring to the table, through military means if need be, those whose are opposed to each other.

I come now to Daesh and ISIS. Having mentioned Assad and his background, and achieving little hope or help in that regard, heaven only can reflect on Daesh, an organisation that would take a Jordanian pilot, put him out in the middle of a square in a cage, in full view of the world community, and set fire to him. Set fire to him! What is the sort of thinking of a group of people who can try to eliminate a whole culture? Who can rape; who can force girls and women into sexual slavery and marriage? Who can behead people? In the recent case of the desecration of ancient sites at Palmyra, an 82-year-old archaeologist, who as I understand it had devoted his life to the protection and preservation of those priceless assets, was not just deported, not just killed mercifully or humanely but beheaded! Let's be under no illusion in this place at this time about what we are dealing with.

Australia is not taking a lead role in this process; it is taking a contributory role. I do not propose in my contribution to address necessarily the question of Australians—those resident in Australia and those with Australian citizenship—who have been or who are still keen to leave our shores to go to fight with this horrible group of people. It is not the subject of Senator Siewert's notice of motion moved by Senator Ludlam. I do want to address myself for a moment to the specific words, but before doing so I acknowledge the comments that Senator Ludlam made about the contribution of the Russians. The Russians have been long and strong both as military advisers to the Syrian regime and as providers of military hardware for many, many years. I am not sure what the significance of the current elevation in communication between the Russians, the Syrians and the west is. I have not got my mind around whether that is significant or whether it is just a recognition of an ongoing process. There is no doubt that Russian advisers, Russian weapons and Russian ordnance have long been associated with the Assad regime, but I do not think at this moment that it is only the Assad regime causing the conflict in that country.

I come now to the question as posed by Senator Siewert, that there should be full parliamentary approval before Australian forces are deployed to Syria. I take issue with that conviction. In our parliamentary system it is the role of the executive to make these decisions, harsh and serious as they are. I consulted with a past active service military officer in forming the comments that I want to make. Before doing so, I will defer to the sentiment expressed by Senator Siewert, and that is to say that in this place and in fora such as Senate estimates there are always opportunities for any senator to raise any questions associated with issues of concern in terms of the background of the decision—in this case, the decision to send our personnel over to Syria or into any war zone. Of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you know and I know well, the benefit in Senate estimates is that we have not only Senate colleagues but indeed the senior military and departmental people available to us.

It is the case that the decision making, in circumstances such as these, can and must be made by an executive, a small team, who have available to them the information out of Joint Operations Command, for example, out here at Bungendore; the advice available to them from the Chief of the Defence Force, and, in turn, the chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force. We know very well that decision making has a time circumstance associated with it. We know that it is a fluid process in a military zone. We know that the information that is available is often highly confidential, coming from alternative sources—information that must be sieved; information that must be examined and processed by the Chief of the Defence Force and those reporting to him and advising the executive. It is not possible, in the heat and the ongoing activity in a war zone, for such matters to be the subject of full parliamentary approval and debate.