Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that the leaked memo by former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested that the US should consider whether to ‘conduct an accelerated draw-down of US bases’? The memo continued:

We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

Given the minister’s comments yesterday that ‘we keep our position under review’ and that ‘we are working with our coalition partners to ensure that our contribution is the most appropriate’, can he indicate whether Australia has discussed with the US plans to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq next year? What impact will an accelerated draw-down of US troops have on Australia’s ongoing commitment to Iraq?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not really have a lot to add to the answer that I gave to the similar question from Senator Evans yesterday. The former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, did write a memo which has come to public attention. It was a memo which referred to the tactics which the United States should pursue in respect of Iraq. It was not about the strategic position of the United States; it was about the tactics to pursue. In any intervention of this kind, the tactics are constantly kept under review. It was in the context of the James Baker led group which is reporting to the United States President on the way forward with respect to Iraq. It is quite clear that the United States and indeed Australia do remain committed to helping Iraq become a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself.

Along with the United States we continue to believe that there is still a job for us to do in Iraq and that it would be absolutely the wrong thing to do to just abandon Iraq now, and abandon the Iraqi people to terrorists, insurgents and murderers. We will not do that. The question of the ultimate withdrawal of Australian troops is one that will be based on the conditions that I set down yesterday. It will not be based on some arbitrary calendar—that, of course, was the Mark Latham policy and it seems to be the policy of Mr Rudd, who professes to be an ‘all the way with LBJ’ US supporter. We will wait to see. As I said yesterday, Mr Rudd was right out there as one of the most keen and active proponents of the proposition that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is our view that Australian troops still have a very important role in supporting the Iraqi security forces and we will remain there while we believe that role is important.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the leaking of the Rumsfeld memo comes on top of the UK’s announcement of their intention to hand over security in Basra next year, will the government undertake a formal review of Australia’s military commitment in Iraq? Is the government concerned about the sustainability of its ‘staying the course’ strategy, given the policy changes occurring with our allies?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is typical of this cut-and-run opposition that they are seeking to make much more out of the positions of the United States and Britain than is in fact the case. We are proud to have served with the United States, Britain and many other partners in Iraq—under a UN mandate, which has just been unanimously re-endorsed—ensuring that we do bring peace, order and good government to the people of Iraq. We are not going to do what the Labor Party is proposing to do—that is, just abandon the people of Iraq to their fate. We are not going to do that. We are not going to leave them to murderers, thugs and terrorists like the Labor Party would—the most appalling policy position adopted by the opposition.