Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government’s stance on supporting the democratic government in Iraq. Would the minister advise the House whether there are any other views.

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

First let me tell the honourable member—and I am sure he does not need any reassurance of this—that the Australian government stands by the brave people of Iraq.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Price interjecting

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

Between 10 million and 12 million Iraqis defied terrorists on three occasions to go and vote to reclaim their own future—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Price interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley is warned!

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

We are certainly committed to those people; not to the terrorists and the insurgents and the militias, but to the vast majority of the Iraqi people who obviously want a more peaceful life and certainly have voted for a more democratic life than they had under Saddam Hussein. We are making a good contribution in a number of different ways in Iraq.

The honourable member asked whether there are any other positions. My observation of the Leader of the Opposition over the years when he was the spokesman on foreign affairs is that the Leader of the Opposition has never held a strong position for more than a few days at a time. He will only hold a position for as long as it is popular, and when that ceases to be popular he will move to another position. He is all things to all people. That is my observation. He is getting a good run of course from the media at the moment, but once he comes under scrutiny I think that that will be exposed.

Let us just take the whole issue that this question is about: the troops in Iraq. In November 2003 the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister and said:

Now that regime change has occurred in Baghdad—

which privately I think he may have been pleased about, but Labor was opposed to—

it is the Opposition’s view that it is now the responsibility of all people of goodwill, both in this country—

Australia—

and beyond, to put their shoulder to the wheel in an effort to build a new Iraq.

So the Leader of the Opposition thought we should get in there, we had a responsibility and we should help secure Iraq and a future for the people of Iraq. Good; I agreed with that. In 2004, only a few months later, when the opposition starts running some campaign about ‘troops out by Christmas’, he said, ‘Our objective is to have troops out by Christmas.’ So a few months earlier he was in favour of getting in there and helping; it gets to, I think it was, May 2004 and it is ‘troops out’.

What is the position today of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue? He was asked on Meet the Press on Channel 10 on Sunday: would troops be out by Christmas? Having been in favour of that position in 2004, we have got to 2007 and his answer is:

Of course not ... if I become PM I’d establish early contact ... with the Administration—

that is the US administration—

and talk about how that was best done. I don’t intend to leave our ally immediately in the lurch ...

What is all this about? When you forensically dig into the position of the Leader of the Opposition, this is Labor’s position: Labor believes we should pull out the 500 troops in the Overwatch Battle Group in Dhi Qar Province, but only if there is somebody else who can be found to fill the gap. So that is ‘troops out’, and the Leader of the Opposition can tell all the people in Australia who are in favour of ‘troops out’ that he is in favour of ‘troops out’. What doesn’t he tell those people? He doesn’t tell those people that not only does he believe the security detachment should remain in Baghdad—which is reasonable; I am not making an argument about that—but he also believes that the 200 or so sailors on HMAS Toowoomba should remain in Iraqi waters protecting oil platforms. He believes that the 140 Australians who support the C130s in and around Iraq should remain. He believes that the P3C aircraft and the 170 who go with them should all remain.

The Leader of the Opposition’s position—far from being clear, as some people are trying to claim—is that, of the 1,400 people we have in Iraq, Labor might take out 500 of them if somebody can be found to fill the gap and the other 900 would all remain in Iraq. And Labor’s position—repeated yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition—is also, very interestingly, that the Americans should get out of Iraq—in defeat, in ignominy.

So what is the position of the Leader of the Opposition? The answer is: his position, as usual, is every position. If you are in favour of sticking up for the Iraqis, the Leader of the Opposition has a policy for you. If you are opposed to it, the Leader of the Opposition has a policy for you. If you want troops in Iraq, yes, he can deliver that; if you don’t, yes, he can deliver that. If you support the Americans, yes, he can do that. If you support the insurgents and the terrorists and so on, yes, he can deliver that as well. This country deserves a Leader of the Opposition with a bit of strength, a bit of commitment. Here we have a Leader of the Opposition who vacillates and, in a populist crusade, tries to find a position that will suit absolutely everybody.