Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me no pleasure to follow the member for Hunter on this matter of public importance. I was quite disturbed to hear him lost for words. He referred to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the human and security consequences of withdrawal from Iraq as ‘goo’, whatever he might have meant by that, but to trivialise the human and security consequences really shows a lack of understanding and a superficial analysis of the situation and the possible consequences in Iraq. I quote from a National Intelligence Estimate of January 2007 which says:

... if such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF—

the Iraqi security forces—

would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable …

Perhaps the member for Hunter would call those comments ‘goo’ as well. He said that it was impossible to have a Western style democracy in Iraq. It reminds me of those very paternalistic, colonial approaches to non-Western nations which say: ‘If you are not Western, you can’t experience democracy. If you are not one of us, you can sit there and suffer.’ I for one in this government do not accept that. We believe in the importance of democracy and trying to assist that all over our globe.

The member for Barton has often been described as ‘a good bloke with a bad brief’ and he has not failed to live up to his reputation with this matter of public importance we are debating today. The only thing he did get right in this matter of public importance was that today is the fourth anniversary of military action getting underway against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—and, may I say, military action which saw the downfall of the brutal dictator for which the world is a better place. The government does not shy away from its original decision.

We have seen the Labor Party fly the white flag and give up on Iraq, and we have to ask why? Is it pandering to certain factional elements within its own party? Is it perhaps trying to be cute and populist? Whatever the reason, it really has not explained why we need to withdraw from Iraq. The member for Hunter talked about never putting our troops in harm’s way, but he failed to mention that there have been no troop casualties in Iraq. We have seen this quite artificial distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and the terrorism in both nations. The fate of terrorism in Afghanistan is linked with the fate of terrorism in Iraq.

Both countries have had Australian troops both in a military manner and with reconstruction efforts, and it was very pleasing to see in a survey published on 18 March—the largest survey since troops entered Iraq in 2003—that Iraqis prefer the current leadership by two to one. In contradiction to what is being said by the opposition, most Iraqis do not believe they are in a civil war. So what are we to believe—a survey of Iraqis living in Iraq or the desperate assertions of the Labor Party that there is a civil war, when clearly those in that nation say there is not?

What happens if we withdraw, as the Labor Party wants us to do? Single-handedly we would give the worldwide terrorist cause a massive boost, and it would be a blow for the Australian-American alliance. As we all know, the Leader of the Opposition attempts to be all things to all people, including to our US allies. We are getting quite used to the image in our minds of him walking both sides of the street on almost every issue. He has had more policy positions on Iraq than one cares to remember.

When the war started, the Labor Party was opposed to sending troops. In 2003 Mr Rudd went to Iraq, said it was still a war zone and then said we should increase the number of troops to provide training and protection for the Iraqi security forces and people. What does he think our troops are currently doing in Iraq? They are still training Iraqi soldiers. They are doing an excellent job. Everywhere Australian soldiers go, they make friends and create new alliances. They have a positive impact in Iraq and in other nations. Our troops are very culturally adaptable, and you only need to speak to them to know.

How many members of the opposition have spoken to our service men and women who have been in Iraq and understood how positive our efforts and mission in Iraq have been and how good Australian soldiers feel about the significant contribution—contrary to the patronising comments of the member for Barton—that they have made? Whether it was training a local army or sponsoring and managing Australian aid in Al Muthanna, they have made a contribution far in excess of their actual numbers. I am proud of our troops still serving and of those who have been on their mission.

Where does Mr Rudd stand on Iraq? He has made confusing and contradictory statements when commenting on the matter. We know from The Latham Diaries that Mr Rudd pleaded with the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, not to bring his troops home by Christmas. Now he says the first thing he would do if ever given the chance of governing Australia would be to start the process of withdrawal. It seems that it is not just education and health policies that are regurgitated from the Latham era; it is also diplomatic policies and attitudes towards Iraq.

When referring to weapons of mass destruction, the member for Barton failed to mention the words of the Leader of the Opposition back in 2002. Perhaps he conveniently omitted their inclusion. When he was not leader, Mr Rudd said:

Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists ...

We have had bleating from the opposition this afternoon criticising the government for its initial reasons for sending troops to Iraq, referring to the fact that the claims of weapons of mass destruction did not live up to expectations, and yet the current Leader of the Opposition, at the time, had the same beliefs. But, of course, that was conveniently omitted.

But why withdraw, and what are the consequences to our alliance? What factions are the Labor leadership group pandering to? Are they preparing for the next federal election by attempting to secure Green preferences, like the Premier of New South Wales is doing now in the lead-up to the New South Wales election? What can we possibly achieve by withdrawing, other than contributing to the possibly disastrous human and security consequences for Iraq that have been outlined so far? We will be just another Western nation walking out on the US. That obviously pleases and delights those who are used to US bashing on a regular basis, but the mission in Iraq cannot be abandoned. We have a job to finish. Our troops are making an extraordinary contribution and will continue to do so.

The government are committed to helping the Iraqis rebuild a better nation. We have done positive things. The morale of our service men and women and of US service men and women is high. They know they are doing an important job. They know they have a job to continue and that it is not over.

I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has yet again changed his position on Iraq. I can imagine him speaking to representatives of the US government, saying: ‘Look, mate, don’t worry about this. We don’t really mean it. We still want to be your friends, but I’ve got to say one thing to the loonies in my party and to the loony Greens, who might help me win government. But we don’t really mean it.’ What does he really mean? We will never really know because his position changes on a daily basis.

All I have to say in closing is that our soldiers, our service men and women, have done an extraordinary job well beyond their numbers. They will continue to do so under this government. If the Labor Party do not understand the disastrous consequences of withdrawal, they do not even deserve to be considered as an alternative government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context