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

It's not rubbish! I had occasion only three weeks ago to spend a few days at RAAF Base Amberley and during that time met personnel from both No. 1 and No. 6 Squadron, and, in the case of No. 1 Squadron, those who had recently returned from the theatre of action in Iraq and also those associated of course with the operations and support of our KC30 refuelling aircraft and our Wedgetail communications aircraft overflying that zone. It was interesting to have a conversation with those officers and other personnel, just in terms of: 'What is Australia's role? What information is made available? And what information do they actually provide? What is the level of safety and security for these personnel?' We discussed that in great detail because, as a member of the defence family, one can only have the highest concern for what may well happen to our personnel should they fall into the hands of the other side. I also spoke to them about what our capacity may be should the requirement be there to extend the involvement, as indeed has now been made by the Prime Minister.

Mr Acting Deputy President, as you know, to date, we have six of our FA18 Hornets and the refuelling aircraft and the communications aircraft; we have support personnel on the ground—although not, obviously, in a combat relationship. In association with the New Zealanders, we are operating in a Building Partner Capacity mission in Taji, north-west of Baghdad. And I know of no circumstance in which it is intended that the activities of that particular group will change over time.

I mentioned the importance of our serving personnel. We have obviously come out of theatres in Iraq and subsequently Afghanistan where indeed our personnel were involved in active combat service. I come back to the point that I made a moment ago: that, for the security and the wellbeing of those personnel, decision making back here in Australia has to be done by senior personnel with access to the best information, timely information, and, indeed, in cooperation with other forces with whom we are working.

It is fair to say that the Obama administration, I believe, has tried the non-military route. I spoke earlier about the issue with chemical weapons, and I guess it is really that that caused them to move in the direction that they have.

It was interesting to hear the Attorney-General today responding to questions associated with the collective self-defence argument. He presented four instances and he made the observation, in answer to the question, I think, from Senator Johnston, that indeed Australia does meet each of those four conditions. And if there are those in this chamber or beyond it who want to challenge the assertions of the Attorney-General, then of course they have the obvious opportunity to do so, both in this place and, shortly, in Senate estimates.

It is also, I think, to the credit of this country that the decision has been made to take these 12,000 extra people from Syria, emphasising that these are permanent resettlements. It is not a short-term asylum circumstance where, should that situation change in their home country, they would be able to return home. It is likely—certainly, with my support—that those who will be targeted for location to Australia would be the women and children and families of persecuted minorities who will be unable to return, regardless of if and when peace and stability return to their country, and they will be made welcome.

This is a generous offer by this country. I am delighted to learn that it has support right around this house. It seems to have support within the wider community and I know that each of the states has put their hand up to say they are behind it. At the end of the day, however, it is not the role of parliament to approve the deployment of personnel; it is the role of the executive acting on competent professional military advice.