Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest. The Australian Defence Force has a deployment at the request of the Iraqi government, along with other international forces, of about 1,400, who have been transferring responsibility as time has gone on to the Iraqis in Al Muthanna province. In the process, they have been training up Iraqi forces and they have been helping, in Dhi Qar province, to provide security for the Iraqis. We also have the Navy involved, heading a coalition naval force of 10 ships, including the Royal Australian Naval vessel, Warramunga, which are protecting oil platforms. We have committed over $173 million to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction, elections, the Iraqi Special Tribunal and establishing electricity and water systems.

This is a country with millions of people who risked their lives to vote for a democratically elected government. It wants coalition forces to remain for the time being, and we are staying there and helping them for the time being. We on this side of the House are proud of what we do. Are there any criticisms? Yes; the Labor Party, in particular, is the chief critic of the government on this issue and argues that the more appropriate course of action would be to surrender. On this side of the House we do not warm to the notion of surrender or hauling up the white flag. One of the reasons that we are not in favour of surrender is that we believe it would only enhance the terrorist movement internationally, including in our own region. The Labor Party likes to quote from the American National Intelligence Estimate global terrorism report. I will also quote from it. That report said:

... perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

On ABC radio this morning, the member for Griffith admitted, ‘Jihadists flow into that country’—being Iraq—‘from all directions.’ The interviewer asked the member for Griffith not once, not twice—I cannot keep going on—but eight times on AM this morning what the consequences would be if international forces just fled from Iraq, and the member for Griffith refused to answer that question eight times. Eight times he refused to answer a simple question about what the consequences would be of the Leader of the Opposition’s cut-and-run policy in Iraq. Of course, when the Leader of the Opposition was on the Jon Faine program, it was exactly the same story. Quizzed on that program about how quickly he would pull the troops out, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would discuss that with the Americans and went on to say: ‘How long is it going to take you’—that is, the Americans—‘to put in people to replace us?’

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition’s proposition is that this great country would pull out its forces and ask others to do the job for us. We would go to our ally, the Americans, in the morally bankrupt way that the Leader of the Opposition proposes and say to the Americans, ‘Find someone else to do this job. We are too weak to continue with it.’ Not in the history of this country have we been governed by people as weak as that and this government would never do that sort of thing. The fact is that the Labor Party has the view that it is onto a winner with its cut-and-run policy from Iraq. But it cannot answer the question and it will not answer the question: what are the consequences in the war against terrorism? What are the consequences for international security and what are the consequences for the people of Iraq of the Labor Party’s weak and gutless policy?

See this speech in context