Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (5.22 p.m.)—This is an important matter. Today is the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Two days before that invasion occurred, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the parliament. One would expect that speech to have been appropriate, given that Australians are entitled to absolute precision and certainty when it comes to the deployment of young Australian men and women in the service of their nation. On 18 March, the Prime Minister said:
The engagement of our defence forces will be limited to the period of the conflict ...
I think any reasonable Australian would assume that the conflict he referred to there was the immediate invasion of Iraq and not its aftermath in terms of peacekeeping or stability operations. Indeed, that was confirmed on 4 May 2003, when the Prime Minister, who was then in New York, was interviewed and said that we would be bringing back the troops. He continued:
When we bring back the SAS and the Hornets and some other force elements, we will still have during the transitional period some 1,000 to 1,200 personnel in the area ...
He then said:
... the president reiterated his clear understanding all along we would not be providing a significant peacekeeping force.
Then he was asked, in that context:
Do you see it as months or years ...
He said:
Well I certainly don’t see it as years.
Here we are, four years after, with our combat forces still involved in Iraq. The Prime Minister says that in no way are those public statements of his misleading or inconsistent, because the Al Muthanna task group was deployed in Al Muthanna in March 2005, which corresponds with my recollection. But, on any reasonable analysis, statements by the Prime Minister and many statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm that it was never the intention that Australia be involved in a protracted occupancy of Iraq—and that is certainly what has occurred.
In terms of what the government’s plans are for Australian forces to be withdrawn from Iraq, quite frankly, it is anyone’s guess. I asked the Prime Minister a question today. The text of my question was:
Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of the preparation by the Pentagon of a plan for a phased withdrawal of United States troops in the event that the current ‘surge’ of United States troops fails to stop sectarian violence in Iraq?
I also asked:
Does the Prime Minister have a similar contingency plan of phased withdrawal in place for Australian forces?
Subject to the transcription of his answer, the Prime Minister, as I recall, said, ‘The answer is yes, it is normal for such a contingency plan to be prepared’—or words to that effect. In answer to the follow-up question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—which basically was, ‘What is that contingency plan?’—the Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of misleading him, because, he said, he had been asked about the United States plan.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr McCLELLAND—The minister at the table interjects that perhaps they are one and the same. Perhaps we have delegated our foreign policy responsibility on such an important issue to the United States administration and perhaps, in that context, their plan is our plan. The Labor Party are very strong allies of the United States—always have been and always will be—but we will never delegate our national security responsibility to any other regime.
Looking at the government’s strategy in respect of Iraq, you will see that it is delusional. We invaded Iraq for the purpose of ridding that country of weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, those weapons of mass destruction did not exist. The invasion occurred despite the fact that the United Nations inspectors had not completed their reporting on that matter.
Why was the invasion necessary? The invasion became necessary—as the Prime Minister said in a speech on 4 February 2003—because international sanctions had failed. He said:
The old policy of containment is eroding. Saddam Hussein has increasingly been able to subvert the sanctions.
He also accused Saddam Hussein of ‘cruelly and simply manipulating the oil for food program’. There is no doubt that that was occurring. The Prime Minister said:
Tragically for the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein has rorted the program, violated its provisions and evaded its constraints.
Regrettably, again he was dead accurate—dead for many Iraqis and allied troops, indeed. He was quite correct. Saddam Hussein had bypassed the sanctions and rorted the oil for food program. And who were the biggest international rorters, the world champions of rorting, of that program that led to the invasion of Iraq, in the Prime Minister’s own words? Australia was. Australians have been disgraced in that it was our government—a government that was responsible for signing off the work of AWB—that was responsible for the greatest rorting of that oil for food program and for bypassing the sanctions regime.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr McCLELLAND—I pick up and note that admission. It is an admission that the government rorted the oil for food program and the sanctions against Iraq. That is why the invasion was necessary. The government is a disgrace in that respect. It is a disgrace that no charges have been laid relating to the oil for food program and the rorting carried out by AWB—no charges. We suspect that the Crown prosecutors will give a report after the next election. It is a disgrace that no public servants have been sacked as a result of AWB having rorted that program. In addition, it is a disgrace that ministers have not been held accountable for what—even taken in the very best of light—has been a gross neglect of their obligations in overseeing the work of AWB.
In effect, the invasion of Iraq occurred as a result of a falsehood. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had not been permitted to exhaust and complete its weapons inspection. It became necessary because of the failure of the sanctions. The sanctions were unquestionably rorted and Australia, under this government, were the biggest rorters. But after four long years in Iraq, the government is yet to admit responsibility for this gross foreign policy failing—indeed, an outrageous abuse of power in the sense that those sanctions were rorted.
The Prime Minister says: ‘Look, forget the past. I’m not going to apologise, but forget the past. What we have to do is fight the terrorists who are in Iraq.’ Again, the representations in this respect are misrepresentations. Why do I say that? Firstly, before the invasion of Iraq, there was no evidence of a substantial presence of al-Qaeda in that country. Indeed, security reports have confirmed that. Secondly, the Prime Minister, with respect, is misrepresenting the nature of the conflict that is occurring in Iraq. Iraq is essentially facing a civil war, and that civil war is between a Shiite majority and a Sunni minority.
Mr Hunt—And what are the consequences for people of your policy?
Mr McCLELLAND—I again pick up the intervention. The consequences for people of our policy are to address the fact that the conflict exists and to admit that it is a conflict that exists. It is a civil war between warring Islamic factions, between Shiites and the Sunnis. Yes, there is a presence of insurgents supported by al-Qaeda. By and large, they are supporting the Sunnis. The Sunni minority is trying to take down the Shiites.
But, as the American ambassador acknowledged in July last year, the principal cause of instability in Iraq is sectarian violence, this conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. To say that we are in there fighting terrorists as opposed to trying to police and babysit, if you like, two Islamic factions is a complete misrepresentation. Indeed, in the area where Australians are in southern Iraq, in the provinces of Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, they are virtually totally Shiite. Indeed, the Shiite militias from Baghdad go there on holidays for a bit of a break from the hostilities. There is very little, if any, Sunni presence, and one can assume from that that there is very little likelihood—and the government can correct me if I am wrong on this—of an al-Qaeda presence at all in that area.
So the representation that Australians are there fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation; it is a misrepresentation of the nature of the conflict in Iraq. It is a civil war that even General Petraeus, who has been complimented by the Prime Minister today, acknowledges is only going to be solved by a political solution. So this representation that we have to have troops there because they are fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation.
On the other hand, our troops are most certainly fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. In the coming months they are going to come under all kinds of pressure. The government knows, we know, it is an extremely dangerous situation. There are approximately 10,000 Taliban fighters who have been trained in Pakistan by al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, ready for a summer invasion of Afghanistan, and who our troops will be confronting. It is a very dangerous situation indeed. There is a substantial prospect of casualties, which of course we all hope and pray against. That is why we asked the Prime Minister in question time today, ‘Does the government have any additional plans to supplement our force structure in Afghanistan?’
But it is not simply a question of supplementing your force structure, your protective forces, in Afghanistan; it is a question of allocating your national security priorities. In that context, Mark Thompson, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that by focusing your resources on one battle location, you ‘double the resources that can be devoted to higher command, intelligence and policy, at the same time delivering a greater capacity for force protection and independent national command on the ground’. That is an expert saying, ‘If you’re in a combat situation, obviously if you can focus your resources on the one zone, you are doubling the resources that you can apply for that protection.’
No-one would ever say that anything our troops did was tokenistic or symbolic. Clearly our Australian troops are decent, talented, highly professional people. But the reality is they are in circumstances where they have not been called out as part of their civil call function or their security overwatch function; they have not been called out to assist the Iraqi police in that role. You have to question why we have them there. Why aren’t we focusing those resources where our troops are fighting terrorists, where they are facing an extremely dangerous period in the coming months? Why are we splitting our resources, including our intelligence resources? Why aren’t we backing up our troops in Afghanistan to ensure that casualties are minimised?
I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were here, that it is the responsibility of a Prime Minister in these circumstances not to think as a politician but to think as a warrior. And a warrior looks at outcomes, not symbolism. The outcomes that we can achieve in fighting the terrorists, the Taliban in Afghanistan, are real. That is where our resources should be focused. If we do not focus sufficient resources on protecting our troops in Afghanistan, then we are not doing the right thing by them. Clearly we are not doing the right thing by them, and, worse than that, we are exposing them to risk.
Our involvement in Iraq has been flawed from the start; we invaded Iraq on a false premise. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The invasion was necessary because the sanctions that had been imposed had been rorted. The Australian government and AWB under the control of the Australian government were the world’s leading rorters of that program. The government has absolutely no plans. It has not at any stage declared a mission statement for our troops. It is a disgrace and the government deserves to be condemned for this policy failure. (Time expired)