Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Australians hear their government talk of involvement in Iraq again, they have good reason to be cautious. The disaster of the 2003 invasion colours every debate—and we should never forget its lessons. As I said back in 2003, in a letter presented to the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and our own Howard government rushed in to Iraq. They went in on the basis of false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and before weapons inspectors had been given time to do their work. They went in without international support, and without the support of the majority of the Iraqi population or of neighbouring countries. Australia went in despite hundreds of thousands of Australians marching against that involvement—and the result? Nearly a decade of conflict, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and significant instability in the region. In the context of that history, it is right that people are cautious now.

While history should inform our actions, it should not cloud a sober assessment of the facts of the current situation. Islamic State is an abhorrent, brutal force. It is an organisation that will kill anyone who opposes it. There are confirmed instances of IS engaging in widespread ethnic and religious cleansing, targeted killings, forced conversions, abductions, trafficking, slavery, sexual abuse, destruction of places of religious and cultural significance, and the besieging of entire communities. There are reports of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and thousands injured. These reports are so serious that on Monday the United Nations Human Rights Council authorised an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Iraq. And journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley have been brutally killed for propaganda purposes. The UN refugee agency says around 1.2 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes. A humanitarian disaster already exists in Iraq.

The scale of the crisis has led to calls for the international community to assist. The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has said:

The international community must ensure solidarity. Not a single country or organisation can handle this international terrorism. This has global concerns, so I appreciate some countries who have been showing very decisive and determined actions without addressing this issue through certain means, including some military and counter terrorist actions, we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue.

That is from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Iraqi government has asked for help in pushing back IS, and Iraqi communities here in Australia have called for support too, including Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, and other minorities. Labor MPs have met with some of these groups, as I myself have done, and understand their fears for families and communities left behind in Iraq.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has ruled out sending Australian combat troops to Iraq. That, indeed, would be a very serious step. Labor have said clearly that we do not want Australia's regular forces on the ground in Iraq, but Labor have clearly backed Australia's involvement in the current humanitarian mission. Australia should act because, as a decent international citizen, we respect the doctrine of responsibility to protect. Responsibility to protect is engaged when national authorities are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans championed the idea of the responsibility to protect. Gareth is the driver of the adoption of responsibility to protect by the United Nations and is the leading international authority on it. He uses a set of criteria to judge when responsibility to protect should be engaged. On the current question of Iraq, these principles have provided Labor with a very useful framework to help guide our decision making around supporting Australian involvement both now and in the future.

Some of the criteria that Gareth has set out include, firstly, just cause—is the threat serious and is irreparable harm occurring to human beings? News reports and briefings provided to the opposition by Australian security agencies make clear that communities in northern Iraq face very serious threats from IS and that thousands have already been killed. Representatives of Kurdish, Assyrian Christian and other communities in Australia have argued strongly that their communities in Iraq face genocide from Islamic State, which is highly intolerant of people and communities who do not subscribe to their own extreme version of Sunni Islam or, indeed, of Sunnis who oppose their violent jihad.

Secondly, we ask: is there the right intention? Is the main intention of the military action to prevent human suffering, or are there other motives? Unlike in 2003, there is no intention for regime change of the government of Iraq by the US, Australia or other countries. Nor is there any attempt by countries to gain access to Iraq's natural resources.

Thirdly, we ask: is this the final resort? Has every other measure besides military intervention been taken into account? This does not mean that every other measure has to have been applied and failed. It means that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that only military action will work in this situation. The Iraqi security forces have proven incapable of protecting the communities in northern Iraq. Islamic State has shown it will not negotiate or follow the rules of war. The advice of security agencies is that the Peshmerga, the armed forces of the Kurdistan regional government in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq, are the major effective armed force currently in the northern region capable of resisting Islamic State. They are effective and they are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Because the fighting is worst in the north, that is where our help should primarily be directed.

Fourthly, we ask: is there legitimate authority? The Abbott government has advised the opposition that current proposed actions have been authorised by the government of Iraq. That was confirmed yesterday by the Iraqi Ambassador to Australia. The support of the United Nations Secretary-General is also very significant. We see that countries such as Canada, which did not participate in the invasion in 2003, have agreed to be part of this humanitarian mission.

Fifthly, we ask: are the means proportional? Are the minimum necessary means applied to secure human protection? This criterion is readily met for humanitarian air drops that include food, water and medicine. I congratulate our Air Force and other personnel who have already completed these vital missions, saving thousands of lives on Mount Sinjar.

As for re-arming the Peshmerga, the alternative is to watch IS, using sophisticated weapons it has captured in its forward march, outgun the only effective force protecting civilians in the north. We are supporting Iraqis to defend themselves against a merciless enemy. The Peshmerga have for many years provided the Kurdish region of Iraq with a degree of security much better than in other parts of Iraq.

Sixthly, we ask: is there a reasonable prospect? Is it likely that action will protect human life, and are the consequences of this action sure not to be worse than the consequences of no action at all?

This is perhaps the most difficult question, because the history of Western influence in the Middle East is so fraught with complexity. It is hard to point to too many examples in which intervention has left a country clearly better off, and unfortunately there are too many instances where the opposite could be said. We are rightly cautious, especially after Australia's previous involvement in Iraq, which saw our brave service men and women sent to fight in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. But I believe the humanitarian missions we are currently involved in do meet this criteria. Allowing IS to slaughter whole communities cannot be allowed, so we must respond to the Iraqi call for assistance.

Of course, responsibility to protect really seeks to answer one question: that is, in the face of mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—at what point can the international community no longer stand by and do nothing? It is Labor's belief, based on the assessments of the facts that I have just provided, that Australia and the world have a responsibility to protect, and thus an obligation to act. To borrow a phrase made famous by our Chief of Army: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Australia could no longer walk past. We had to do something in response to such unspeakable horror. (Extension of time granted)

But just as important as our own action is making sure that Iraq's neighbours do something in response, too. That means that countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and others should be encouraged to stand up and say very clearly: 'The actions of IS are beyond the pale, and we will join international efforts to defeat them.'

The conflict in Syria has been an important factor underpinning the rise of IS. The spread of IS from Iraq to Syria and then back again, returning much stronger and more brutal, underscores how critical it is for nations in the region to acknowledge this problem is bigger than any one of them. More than 191,000 Syrians have already lost their lives. The scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria has seen impacts spill all over the region. More than nine million displaced Syrians have to go somewhere, and that has seen both Lebanon and Jordan take millions of refugees. The legal authority does not currently exist for similar support to Syria, but we should be doing a great deal more to support Syria in any case. The UN has called for a $6½ billion aid fund for the Syrian crisis. It is the largest-ever appeal for funds, and it reflects the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. In Australia under the coalition government, we have pledged just $30 million or so, a very sad response to an enormous humanitarian need. And we have agreed to take just 2,200 refugees from Syria and 2,200 from Iraq as part of our regular intake, when millions are displaced and at risk.

As the opposition leader said earlier in the week, every action of IS is a betrayal of millions of good people of good conscience who follow Islam. Islamic State does not represent the Islamic faith. This cannot be repeated often enough. Likewise, action taken against IS is not action against Islam, and we must not allow any misrepresentation that this is the case. By working with the international community, including countries with large Islamic populations like Indonesia and Malaysia, we can mobilise the power of mainstream Islam against minority extremism. In fact, I note a group of British imams and scholars recently issued a fatwa condemning Islamic State as a: 'tyrannical, extremist, heretical organisation committing abhorrent massacres and persecution.' The fatwa calls on Muslims to oppose IS and follow the law of their homeland—in this case, Britain. Our own security chief, David Irvine, has stressed again and again that Australian Muslims are ASIO's best partners against violent extremists, and I acknowledge the hard work and personal cost that many Australians have borne in order to speak out against extremism.

I conclude with this: what I have laid out today is Labor's assessment of the situation in Iraq at this point in time. I have explained why we have offered the government our support for Australia's humanitarian involvement thus far. I have outlined the principles that will guide how Labor responds to any proposed further involvement by Australia. Labor believes that there are circumstances where Australia has a responsibility to protect, but as an opposition we also have a responsibility to question and to carefully scrutinise the approach put forward by the government.

Labor will work constructively with the government, but we are no rubber stamp. We will look at the facts, and we will make sensible judgements. National security is above politics, but such important decisions are never beyond question, interrogation or criticism.

The decision to send Australian men and women into harm's way should never be taken lightly, and we will never take that decision lightly. Our responsibility to the people of Iraq is to ensure any action Australia is involved in leaves the place better, not worse. President Obama's careful, considered response to this matter shows that maybe the international community has learnt some very hard lessons from the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with profound sadness and concern for the terrorised men, women and children in Iraq and Syria that all of us rise to speak about the developing situations in the region. In supporting the Prime Minister's statement to the parliament on Monday, I want to reiterate that everybody in the Australian government is steadfast in our support for decency and our solidarity with the Iraqis and Syrians suffering at the hands of ISIL.

The brutality of the hate-fuelled terrorist movement which, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, offensively calls itself the Islamic State knows no bounds. Each and every day media reports come out of the region describing mass executions, beheadings, crucifixions and other torturous acts carried out by this death cult. Even worse, is the gruesome footage that ISIL distributes on the internet to revel in their killing of innocent people—people who have done nothing except fail to conform to their medieval, narrow view of the world.

Just this morning, we received reports of ISIL posting footage of the purported beheading of a second American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and exulting in this cruellest form of barbarism. My heart goes out to his family and to the thousands of families in Iraq and Syria, whose names we do not know, but who also mourn their loved ones following the mass killings meted out by ISIL.

As Australians, we cannot stand by and watch such suffering. We cannot hear reports of a potential genocide developing and turn away. It is simply not in our nature. Our history has shown time and again that as a country we will not let pure evil reign unchecked nor fail to come to the aid of vulnerable people. We do not seek out conflict, but we do play our part in resolving it and in assisting people in need. The current situation in Iraq is no different. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the parliament on Monday, we cannot in good conscience let the Iraqi people face this horror alone, or ask others to do in the name of human decency what we will not do ourselves. So, as a government and with the valued support of the Australian people, we are doing what is decent and right and providing military and humanitarian assistance to besieged people in the region.

I wish to acknowledge the leadership of our Prime Minister, whose compelling statement to the House reinforced the pressing need for our action, and also the foreign minister, who has been a vocal advocate on the international stage for strong condemnation of ISIL and for humanitarian support. At the request of the United States, and as part of a multinational effort, we have successfully transported stores of military equipment, including arms and munitions. Australian aircraft have also assisted in successful airdrops of food, water and hygiene supplies to people trapped on Mount Sinjar and in the town of Amerli.

We have done this with the support of the Iraqi government, and we stand ready to provide further assistance as required. We will do all that we reasonably can to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people and to put a halt to ISIL's barbarism. We will also be relentless in our pursuit of the terrorists who have betrayed this country and lost their right to call themselves Australians by joining the ISIL forces. At least 60 Australian citizens are thought to be fighting with ISIL, some of them boasting on social media of their hideous, inhumane acts, with about another 100 or so providing support. These people must know this: if they return to this country they will be caught and punished with the full force of the law.

In conclusion, I want to commend the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their moral courage in the face of pure evil. I also want to commend the Australian people who have provided us with the support to be able to undertake these actions on their behalf. I also want to reiterate my support for further humanitarian actions in Iraq and Syria, if necessary.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that the situation in Iraq is dire. To quote Amnesty International:

The Islamic State is carrying out despicable crimes and has transformed rural areas of Sinjar into blood-soaked killing fields in its brutal campaign to obliterate all traces of non-Arabs and non-Sunni Muslims.

I agree that the international community must act and must act quickly. Indeed, I am open-minded about what shape that action should take, even though many people would be aware of my strident opposition to the war more broadly, and in particular opposition to Australia's decision to join in the invasion in 2003 which started this war.

My concern today is twofold. Firstly, how did Australia help to create this mess that we are now forced to deal with? How did we get ourselves into this mess? My second concern is how do we properly go about dealing with it. What are the proper processes for government and the parliament to make the decisions—the best decisions—to now come up with the best solutions?

Regarding how we got into this mess, let us not forget that Australia helped to start this war 11½ years ago when we joined in the invasion of Iraq. We removed Saddam Hussein, we dismantled their administration and we disbanded the Iraqi military. In fact, what we did—starting 11½ years ago—was help create the vacuum which was subsequently filled by terrible violence, the vacuum that very much is being filled today in parts of Iraq by the Islamic State.

Today's tragedy is all the more tragic because it did not need to be this way. There were other ways to deal with the odious Saddam Hussein 11½ years ago—for example, giving the weapons inspectors the extra time that they were asking for to search for these weapons of mass destruction. But instead, what did the Australian government do and, in particular, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, supported by the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer? They built a framework of lies to justify us joining in the start of this 11½-year war. People would well remember the nonsense about Iraq having a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that it was cooperating actively with Osama bin Laden and it was only a matter of time before those deadly weapons would be passed to the terrorists and used against us. Remember all the talk that Iraq could launch missiles at the United Kingdom within 40 minutes. All of these stories were subsequently debunked and found to be false.

More recently, we have made more mistakes. Australia, of course, has been diplomatically, at least, a very strong supporter of the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Part of those rebels was, and is, the Islamic State. For quite a long period of time now, the Gillard government, then the brief Rudd government and now the Abbott government, have been giving succour to the very people who are now causing the problems in Iraq.

No wonder then, given history of this, that many people are questioning and are restless about what we are doing—and, in fact, about whether we are doing the right thing. That helps to explain the position of many people, which I hope to represent faithfully. The position of many people is that decisions like this really need to be decisions for the parliament. There is, I suggest, no more serious decision for a country than to go to war. And we are in a war now. In fact, some of the dishonesty is already emerging in recent days, talking about, 'We are involved in more humanitarian missions in Iraq.' The military would say that flying munitions and weapons around a battlefield is combat support. It is a key part of war fighting. So I reject the notion that what we are now doing is humanitarian. We are providing combat support operations for the Kurds, and it needs to be seen as that. That may well be with the approval of the vast majority of the parliament, perhaps including myself, if it were to be put to a vote. But let us be honest with the Australian people about what we are now involved in.

Hence I make the point—and I have been saying this consistently for some time now—that the decision to go to war and the decision to commit troops or military forces to a war zone, to put them in harm's way, really should be taken out of the hands of the Prime Minister. It really should be a decision for the parliament. When I have said this publicly in previous days, the Prime Minister has described my suggestion as a novel idea. I reject that criticism—or at least observation—by the Prime Minister. It is not novel to have the parliament directly involved in decisions about war and peace and sending troops or military forces to war. In fact, it is already the law of the land in countries as diverse as Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and even the United States. It is their law that the congress be involved in making decisions about sending troops into a conflict, and certainly declaring war. Yes, in the United States, sometimes presidents ignore that requirement, but it is their law. So if it is good enough for these countries that we hold in high regard, why do we in Australia still have this historical oddity, I suppose you could call it, where the Prime Minister can act virtually unilaterally and take us to war—as was the case in 2003 when John Howard, virtually unilaterally, took us to war in Iraq?

Even in the UK, it has become the convention that the House of Commons will be involved in decisions about becoming involved in a conflict. It is very telling that, last year, British Prime Minister David Cameron took to the House of Commons whether or not Britain should provide material support to the rebels in Syria. And the House of Commons, in what was a stunning defeat for the British Prime Minister, voted that down. It might have been a stunning defeat for the British Prime Minister, but I think it was a triumph for democracy in the United Kingdom. It is something we should seek to emulate, because the House of Commons decided that it would be a bad idea to provide support to the Syrian rebels, part of which is the Islamic State, which we are now battling in Iraq.

I make the point again that the situation is dire. We need to do something, and I am open minded about what we do. But is it not a crying shame that we helped to create this mess in the first place? Is it not a crying shame that we live in an otherwise wonderful country, but we still allow our Prime Minister to make decisions as weighty as this?

In closing, I think this issue highlights that the government is not as strong on national security as it would like us to believe. The fact is that it is not allowing a proper parliamentary debate on this matter; instead, it has shunted it up here to the Federation Chamber, where it will end with a whimper and there will not be a vote in the main chamber. I think the government is letting us down on national security by handling it this way—just as I think, more broadly, the government is letting us down in some other areas on national security.

The government is, understandably, wanting to progress some reforms to our security legislation, many of which are very good reforms. But when those suggestions came to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the committee reported last year, the committee in fact recommended that any reforms be prepared in detail, be put into an exposure draft, be put out for public comment and stakeholder consultation and be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. And that is not going to happen.

Another misstep: despite all the talk about home-grown terrorism and the fact that terrorists look for soft targets—we know that—the government is withdrawing the federal police from my own home state of Tasmania, including Hobart airport. That is another misstep by the government. But I hope that by highlighting these things publicly I can encourage the government to look to rectify them.

In closing, all I can say is that we can but hope that things turn around quickly for the better for the Iraqi people. A decade of UN sanctions followed by 11½ years of war, continuing violently to this day, have cost the lives of millions of Iraqis, and every one of those casualties is a human being with families and friends, and every one of those deaths is a tragedy. It brings me to tears that it did not have to be this way. But I genuinely hope that whatever the international community decides to do can at least bring some peace to some part of their country. And I say to the Iraqi people, as I have said to them before: please forgive us for what we have done to increase your suffering over the past 11½ years.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister's motion on Iraq. And I say right at the outset that we talk often about how this is not a political matter or a partisan matter, but there has been no end to partisan commentary to date. So, I would like to go back and talk a little bit about how this is considerably more complex than what the member for Sydney or the member for Denison have suggested. The situation in Iraq and Syria is no doubt dire, and I agree with many who have said that the Islamic State needs to be defeated. But it also needs to be defeated philosophically—defeated through a war of weapons, a war of ideas, a war of principles and therefore a war of courage and resilience. As a consequence, I cannot see this ending any time soon; it is going to go on for a long while.

But when we look back—and a lot of people are just glossing over what Iraq was like before the previous war—everything that Saddam Hussein did and the doubt about where the weapons of mass destruction were, what the capabilities were, his cover-ups and his resistance to full access to weapons inspectors are forgotten with the passage of time. I would suggest that particularly in Iraq and also to a degree in Syria there have been two problems. Firstly, there was a lack of control over the new government in Iraq. There was a lack of supervision, an interest to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible without providing the proper guidance for the Shiah-led government of Prime Minister Maliki to create a system, a government, that had true balance and representation between the Sunni and the Shiah people, whether in the military or within government. I think there was this haste to get out, as public concern about the conflict in Iraq was one of the big issues.

But, above all, the biggest issue—and this is where we need to understand what the Islamic State is about and that this is not some new development—is that to fully understand IS we must first understand the original Wahhabism of Sunni Islam and how it changed early in the last century, because prior to the 1920s Wahhabism was a violent and hate-filled revolution. It was designed to purge Islam of what were deemed heresies and idolatries and, in effect, to bring all of Islam under one voice and their so-called pure Sunni teachings.

It was around the 1920s that the Saudi king changed Wahhabism to become a cultural revolution rather than a violent revolution. That was done in order to court the British and the Americans for their help in developing the fairly recently discovered oil riches of that country. Until that time, Wahhabists believed in the excommunication of Shiites and in fact anyone who did not subscribe to their form of Sunni Islam. Wahhabism also enshrined the Saudi king as the Sunni leader of the world; and, since that change, the cultural revolution has been advanced by spending billions of dollars of Saudi money to promote Wahhabist doctrine all around the world. The money is spent on mosques, imams, general promotion of the Sunni teachings and somewhat softer diplomacy, public relations. I say again that this cultural revolution, this PR campaign, was a big departure from the violent course of Wahhabism that existed before the 1920s.

Of course, not everyone agreed with this departure from violence. Before this change in the 1920s, the Ikhwan were at the forefront of the violent Wahhabist period, using murder, brutality, rape and fear as part of the traditionalist Wahhabist doctrine. It all sounds rather familiar. That had been going on for hundreds of years. The Ikhwan were a fighting, militant and puritanical moralistic movement that always believed in the right to kill, violate and take anything from heretics or non-purist Sunnis and of course nonbelievers. They strongly disagreed with the cultural revolution or, as some may say, the evolution of Wahhabism by the Saudi king. The Saudi king, however, defeated the Ikhwan at that time and killed many. Sadly, many escaped.

The Ikhwan movement or philosophy was never destroyed and its successor is the Islamic State. But, instead of the Wahhabist belief in the Saudi king as the head of Sunni Islam, IS believe in following a single Muslim leader, the caliph—in fact, their caliph now. Those Muslims who disagree are heretics and all others are nonbelievers, to be dealt with in the same violent way. Their strategy is to create fear and seek the subservience of all, and they do so by killing the men, raping the wives and daughters of those who do not follow them and then taking all of their property. We see this being played out right now.

IS finds sympathy with some in Saudi Arabia and across Sunni Islam—sympathy from those who still believe that violence to purge all who oppose the single voice of Sunni Islam is the right path. IS has essentially returned to the violent and brutal Ikhwan movement, the vanguard of the original Wahhabism, with the same brutality and fear tactics that see the same fate for other sects of Islam and nonbelievers. They will not stop at borders, and the establishment of the IS or the caliphate is only the first step towards domination of the entire world.

I believe that the appeal that IS has for young Sunni Muslims here in Australia and elsewhere in the West is that they see it as something of an exciting cause where they feel powerful. Sadly, that power is the power over life and death, the power to sexually abuse women and children, while at the same time being told they are doing God's work. I say that what they are is a group of people who have failed to take the legitimate advantages, the very real opportunities, that this and other countries have provided to them; they are all about excuses for that failure. There is no persecution of them in Australia or elsewhere in the West, only a lack of effort by them. The Islamic State gives them a false and warped philosophy, telling them that they can look down on others, including women and those of other religions. Where the risk is compounded is that those who take up this cause will undoubtedly follow the doctrine where murder, rape and stealing are seen as a religious duty. Let us not beat around the bush: regardless of other interpretations of Islam, these things are being done right now in the name of Islam. 'IS' does stand for Islamic State.

I am nevertheless encouraged by the actions of the Perth Iraqi community in opposing the Islamic State and radicalism. We should also remember that planned acts of terrorism in Australia have been thwarted with the assistance and information provided by moderate Muslims within the community, and I encourage them to continue to do so. The truth remains that we do have traitors in this country. They are Australians who believe in IS and violent Wahhabism. These people, and their supporters, must be stopped and prosecuted before they leave Australia or provide support. Dual citizens must have their citizenship revoked. Terrorists are traitors to this nation, they are a threat to this nation and they must be dealt with very firmly in order to protect this nation from terrorism.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a statement on this incredibly important issue today. I would like to begin by acknowledging the bipartisan approach that our leaders from both the government and the opposition have taken on this issue, and I commend them for that. As the Leader of the Opposition said, national security is and always will be above politics. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their informed and measured statements on this issue.

I am proud that Australia is able to play a role in the global response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering. Labor unreservedly condemns the evil of IS and the genocide it is inflicting on minorities in Iraq. We also seek to do all we can to support the new Iraqi government, which will be formed on or around 10 September.

The events that have unfolded in Iraq have horrified Australians. They have horrified the world. There have been acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale, including beheadings and other killings, forced conversions, slavery and sexual abuse. The United Nations has reported that:

Children have been present at the executions, which take the form of beheading or shooting in the head at close range.

Bodies are placed on public display, often on crucifixes, for up to three days, serving as a warning to local residents.

Women have been sold into marriage. The British based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it had confirmed that at least 27 Yazidi women had been kidnapped by IS in Iraq, taken to Syria, forced to convert and sold into marriage for around $1,000 each to other IS fighters. The group said it was aware that some 300 Yazidi women had been kidnapped and transported to Syria but had so far documented the sale into marriage of 27.

There has been persecution of Christians, Yazidis, Shiah, Turkmens and other ethnic groups. As the UN Deputy High Commissioner for human rights said, these are communities that have lived side by side on the same soil for centuries and, in some cases, for millennia. Amnesty International has said that IS has launched a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, carrying out war crimes, including mass summary killings and abductions, against ethnic and religious minorities. According to the UN, more than 1.6 million people have been displaced this year by violence in Iraq and at least 1,420 were killed in Iraq in August alone. The evidence is overwhelming, and we must respond.

Naturally, over the past weeks and months, many have drawn comparisons with the 2003 war in Iraq. Naturally, there have been concerns that we may repeat the mistakes of 2003 and the war that followed. I do believe that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. I opposed it then and I stand by that view now. But I want to make it very clear that the situation in Iraq today is entirely different to the situation in 2003.

In the late 1990s I worked on the Iraq desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so I was across what had come out of the UNSCOM mission in Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM, was an inspection regime created in 1991 to oversee Iraqi compliance with the destruction of chemical, biological and missile weapons facilities and also to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons facilities in the aftermath of the Gulf War. UNSCOM conducted this mission from 1991 to 1999, including for the last two years under the direction of Australian Richard Butler. UNSCOM uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programs, destroyed elements of these programs, including equipment, facilities and materials, and mapped out and verified the full extent of these programs in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal. Even to a mid-ranking DFAT employee like me, it seemed obvious that the continued existence of comprehensive WMD programs in 2003 was unlikely. So I supported Labor's position in 2003 to oppose the war and I believe this position has indeed been vindicated.

In 2003, we went to Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, without the approval of the Iraqi government, without an effective plan to win peace, without clear objectives and without widespread international support. Today the situation is entirely different. As the leader of the opposition spelt out, we have three clear objectives: one, responding effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering; two, promoting a unity government in Iraq that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion—a government that would reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities, enabling effective security and control of Iraqi territory, and we must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position; and, three, denying motivation and opportunity for Australian foreign fighters.

The UN Secretary-General has called for the international community to take very decisive and determined actions to prevent atrocities in Iraq. He said that the crisis in Iraq was very worrisome, and that the activities by Islamic State are totally unacceptable. He says:

The international community must ensure solidarity.

Not a single country or organisation can handle this international terrorism. This has global concerns, so I appreciate some key countries who have been showing very decisive and determined actions. But all these actions should be supported by all the international community.

…   … …

… without addressing this issue through certain means, including some military and counter-terrorist actions, we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue.

Iraq's ambassador to Australia has also confirmed yesterday and again this morning on local ABC radio, that the Iraqi government supports Australia's involvement in this mission; that Iraq 'had been consulted via all of the right channels between the two sides,' to quote him.

The desire to compare this situation to 2003 is understandable, but the comparison is misguided. The situations are entirely different. That said, we must also use the lessons learned from 2003 to proceed with caution but we must not use them to hold us back.

I want to take this opportunity to offer my unreserved support for the dedicated and professional men and women of our Australian Defence Force who will be involved in this mission. Members might have seen the piece Out of darkness comes a shining mission, by Brendan Nicholson, in today's Australian. I would like to quote from this excellent piece:

For RAAF pilot Liesl Franklin, parachuting relief supplies to 17,000 trapped, hungry and terrified Iraqi civilians was one of the most rewarding experiences of her life.

Flight Lieutenant Franklin, 28, was one of two pilots aboard the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that delivered tonnes of supplies to the town of Amerli, which was surrounded by Islamic State terrorists.

Flight Lieutenant Franklin said:

You can get wrapped up in the details of the mission, but at the end of the day you’re there trying to help these people who have been in the most unfortunate situation.'

She goes on to say:

It’s devastating and it’s great to be part of the organisation that’s helping them. If it means they can survive another day, then we’ve done our job. They have a considerable battle ahead.

I commend Flight Lieutenant Franklin and her colleagues, and assure them that they have the full support of the Australian Labor Party. This is a decision that is not taken lightly—the decision to send Australian men and women into harm's way is never taken lightly. There are risks in acting, of course, but I believe the risks in ignoring the situation and taking no action are far, far greater.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the 18th century English politician, Edmund Burke, once quoted:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

What is happening in Iraq at the moment is evil without doubt. I go back to my 18 years service as a police officer with Victoria where I attended a number of homicides and very violent crimes—armed robberies, serious assaults with weapons—and I can say I never attended an incident where someone had been beheaded or had their body parts cut off. What we are seeing in Iraq and Syria is simply barbaric.

We have all read and witnessed on TV what extremists in the Islamic State terrorist organisation—I call them terrorists as that is what they are—are doing to our fellow human beings in Syria and Iraq. It is truly disturbing. News of public executions and beheadings of innocent people is now etched in many people's minds. I feel so awfully sorry for the family members of those who have been executed. In many cases, they have been forced to watch these atrocities take place. Horrors such as Australian citizens, including children—sadly, in most cases encouraged by male parents—gleefully holding severed heads are a stark reminder that Australia is not insulated from what is happening on the other side of the world.

Thousands of women have been forced into sexual slavery. More than a million Iraqis have been driven from their homes. At least 60 Australians are fighting with terrorist groups such as the Islamic State across Iraq and Syria, and they are supported by over 100 more. Many of these Australian terrorists will try to return to Australia and they will, undoubtedly, be comfortable with the killing of human beings—after all, that is why they went there in the first place. This must and will be addressed by terrorism legislation soon to enter the House.

I am extremely pleased that this parliament is showing bipartisan support to protect innocent people at risk of being exterminated by the Islamic State terrorists in northern Iraq. In their statements to the House, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition used the word 'genocide' in relation to persecuted minority groups of Iraq. Genocide is a very strong word, but in this case I agree with their sentiment. There is no other word to describe the barbaric actions of these Islamic State terrorists.

I read yesterday that former Australian Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans said:

US President Barack Obama deserves unconditional support for his decision to use military force to protect the persecuted Yezidi minority from threatened genocide by marauding Islamic State (IS) militants in northern Iraq. The United States’ action is completely consistent with the principles of the international responsibility to protect (R2P) people at risk of mass-atrocity crimes, which was embraced unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005.

I add that overnight the United Nations came out in support of the current action being taken which is also supported by the Iraqi government. Gareth Evans further states:

The US motive in mobilizing air power to protect them is unquestionably humanitarian … many thousands of men, women, and children who have sought refuge in … northern Iraq … face death not only from starvation and exposure, but also from genocidal slaughter by the rapidly advancing IS forces …

To date Australia, in conjunction with American, British and French aircraft, has participated in humanitarian airdrops to people trapped in northern Iraq. Shortly, at the request of the Obama administration and with the support of the Iraqi government, Australian, American, British, French, Canadian and Italian aircraft will airlift supplies, including military equipment, to the Kurdish regional government in Erbil in northern Iraq. We must support these people because they cannot defend themselves from what is happening over there without help.

Australia has met all the requests for humanitarian relief and logistical support. This is the right thing for us to do as a country. I again congratulate the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, who is doing a fantastic job.

The current military action that Australia is involved with in Iraq is nothing like the war in 2003. Australia is there alongside our partners to protect fellow human beings who are being subject to the most hideous and despicable onslaught by barbaric Islamic State terrorists.

Australians are a good people. Australia is a lucky country. We should not sit on our hands while this type of evil against humanity takes place anywhere in the world. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership role and also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his own unequivocal support.

By way of background, I served with the Victoria Police counter-terrorism unit. I am still concerned about a number of our Commonwealth counter-terrorism laws. I have raised this directly with the Prime Minister and also with the Attorney-General. I am still greatly concerned about preventive detention laws. I know, for example, that Victoria Police will not use those laws. There is an argument that, because the laws have never been used, they are good laws. On the other hand, I know as a police officer that those laws are very impractical to use. I cannot understand why you would have a person in custody who is suspected of or involved in an imminent terrorist attack yet you cannot ask them one question. They have to be released. And then you can arrest them under part 1C of the Crimes Act once there is sufficient evidence that they are a suspect. Victorian Police, for example, will then revert back to their state law of 'reasonable time'. What greatly concerns me is that if there is an incident occurring in multiple states—Victoria and New South Wales, for example—one state might use Commonwealth investigation or interview powers while the other uses the state law of 'reasonable time'. The other law that concerns me is mandatory reporting. Again, Victoria requires the reporting of the theft or loss of only one substance, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which has always been the IRA's weapon of choice. But there are a number of other high consequence dangerous goods that need to be added. I have again highlighted this to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General.

The other great concern I have is that police do not have immediate access to information about who is buying explosives or high consequence dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer. People might have a licence, but if a police officer involved in a counter-terrorism investigation checks the person, they would not know whether that person is buying explosives or is undertaking training to be a pilot. As we saw with September 11, we need to make sure that the police members who are investigating terrorism in our country have every tool at hand to make sure they can prevent a terrorist attack. This was a matter I raised in my maiden speech back in 2004 and it still greatly concerns me today. We were able to push it through a bipartisan report in the parliament; and I thank in particular the member for Werriwa, who strongly supported this. I will be pushing this again because we need to give our investigators everything they might possibly need to identify any person or associate who may be involved in terrorist activities.

In closing, my thoughts and prayers are with all the family members of those in Iraq and Syria who have seen the most despicable acts of cruelty inflicted upon their fellow men. We need to stop this. We need to take action. I congratulate both sides of parliament.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This generation of Australians has benefited in a way that previous generations have not in being able to see the world. We have been able to travel a lot more, we have been able to immerse ourselves in the way others live and we have seen the world brought closer together through the benefits of modern communication. I think it is safe to say that, more often than not, when Australians return home from overseas the first thing they think of when they see Australian shores from the comfort of an airplane seat is: 'How good is it to be home!' One of our first thoughts is to think about how great Australia is—and, as much as we have enjoyed our time abroad, we also respect the fact that we are coming back to a country that has been so good to us. In acknowledging that, in the context of the incredible events that have occurred beyond our shores, it is important to recognise that, as much as we are grateful for what this country gives us, we cannot be complacent. This is not a gift that fell into our laps by virtue of luck and good fortune. We all have a responsibility to maintain it, not just for ourselves but for the people that follow us. The peace and stability of this country is very much dependent on our own actions.

It is also right that Australians do not enjoy this stability and peace and then feel that they have no responsibility when others are themselves unable to take advantage of this. By that I mean that, when we see suffering beyond our shores, when something is not right, when the scales of justice and fairness are tipped the wrong way, we as a nation must be prepared to stand up and say that we will act as a nation, with others, to ensure that people are not placed in harm's way. Certainly we abhor unnecessary violence and have been rightly sickened by the scenes that have emerged out of northern Iraq and Syria. We have said that this is simply unacceptable in any day and age and for any people. What we have seen has been horrific. The actions of Islamic State are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We cannot sit back and let these actions—the barbarism, the inflicting of genocide—continue without response. Ultimately, this is about imposing tyranny, pure and simple.

Within northern Iraq we are seeing a group of people abusing religion in their effort to impose tyranny—blackening the name of religion and faith to impose their view. Basically, they would have a system of governing that would exclude everyone, other than those who have access to a gun or some of the horrific other things we have seen inflicted on others.

Nations like ours, built on our values of inclusion, of acceptance and, fundamentally, of democracy—the greatest of the Western democratic traditions are within our nation—cannot abide what we are seeing, and nor should we. Those extremists, when they look to us and see the coexistence that has been achieved within a nation like Australia—and in most Western democracies—cannot stand what they are seeing. They do not want to see coexistence. They want to be able to continue to find enemies that they can persecute. They do not want to be able to see the success that we have been able to achieve in our nation, where regardless of your faith and background you can participate in the democratic channels of this nation, and not only have a say but build something better.

Our vision of coexistence is in contest with a horrific vision. We cannot simply sit and believe that by ignoring what is going on it will go away. Hence we have seen the actions of a number of nations. We have seen the leadership that has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the Australian government, in tandem with other nations, particularly the US, that have been horrified at what has happened, and we have said that we will not allow this to continue.

As I said, we cannot be complacent. We wish for peace and prosperity and stability for ourselves, as much as we wish it for others. That is why the humanitarian effort that has been undertaken, as I described it the other day, has been timely. We could not sit on our hands and see what is occurring be inflicted on others. We cannot let continue the horrific loss of life, the abuse of people's human rights, the mistreatment of women the things that we have seen on social media—the strength of our unity in this has been critical.

As a nation we have put aside politics. Regardless of our views of the world, we have worked as one, not only to speak up on this but to act. In relation to the humanitarian effort that has been undertaken and the type of work that has been done so far that has been critical. The call for help by the Iraqi government has also been critical. They need help; we can provide it. We must do it and we have.

We have also, it is important to say, watched in horror what has happened in Syria. The inability of the international community to deal comprehensively with the genocide that has occurred within those borders has caused a lot of people concern.

Certainly I would make the point—and this is not something I have come up with; others have observed it as well—that these theatres of conflict are being used actively as recruitment platforms by extremists who have sought to distort what is happening there to bring people within their fold to then swell their ranks of extremism and perpetuate it elsewhere. We cannot allow that to occur. As much as we are acting on Iraq, I think it is also important that we as an international community recognise that the deterioration of the situation in Syria cannot continue and that we have to be able to find a way for peace there.

As much as I have reflected in my initial comments in the chamber on what has happened beyond our borders, it is also important to reflect on what is happening within our borders. When the Director-General of ASIO, David Irvine, speaks, I think it is important that we listen. The Director-General is right: there is an issue here. There are people who are being seduced by extremism, who are being radicalised and being tempted to go and act on this extremism elsewhere. And there is a rightful concern that once they have undertaken horrific acts beyond our borders, what happens on their return? Again, we need to act as one.

I am heartened by the words of both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader that what we are fighting here is extremism. We are not fighting faith; we are fighting extremism. And while we may have differences of opinion on approach—on how we do it—I certainly say, from this vantage point of having the honour of representing people in this parliament, that this is not the path to travel down. Extremism is not going to provide the solution or the answers or help anyone. Extremism is more a recipe for further violence and will split people further apart at a time when we need to bring people together. The worst thing you can do is force people into corners where they refuse to engage, refuse to act and refuse to build on that spirit of coexistence I reflected on earlier in my remarks. So, we do need to act.

Again, we might have differences of opinion on how things are done, but, regardless of your politics, if the Prime Minister of this country asks to sit down to sort out these problems that confront the community, then I urge people to sit down and to talk and to respect the fact that the office of Prime Minister has reached out and is seeking a way to bring people together, to fight something that is a common threat to us all: extremism. So, I certainly hope, modestly, that people will take onboard these words and be able to accept that invitation to work together for the common good of this nation.

I seek leave to continue these comments.

Leave granted.

Thank you. We cannot have a situation in which we have continued division in some communities that believe faith is being singled out in trying to deal with the threat of extremism. This is simply not the case. People of goodwill and from all different backgrounds want to work to deal with this issue, and we do need to deal with it. The front page of the Australian detailed a very moving story, I thought, of a father who felt shamed by the actions of his son who was taking up an extremist path and going to do terrible things in Syria. This father is a person who found, as most migrants do, what Australia has provided for them—opportunity and an ability to look at your children with pride and say, 'You're going to have a better life than I had, and you're going to have a better life than we would have had if I had stayed home.' As I often say, migrants and the children of migrants feel an enormous debt of gratitude to this nation—that we have been given an opportunity, not just in a material sense, but to not live with the fear of persecution, to not live with the fear of conflict, to not live with the fear that we cannot be the best we can be because we are not extended the types of privileges that are granted by a democratic nation like this.

If we accept that there is a debt of gratitude that must be repaid in this nation then we cannot sit back and think that it is someone else's job to fulfil that debt. We all have a part to play. So beyond urging people not to take up the path of extremism, let us also identify that extremism and deal with it. We should not just wait for the government to hand out money to deal with this, as much as I welcome the commitment that has been made by the Prime Minister on this front. Money will not solve this problem. What is in our hearts and minds will—to be able to recognise that, even though we have these disputes across the table here, I would never want to see anything happen to anyone across that side of the table as a result of violence, as much as you would not want it on this side. We can be joined in this national endeavour to build a stronger country by weeding out this extremism, dealing with it head-on and ensuring that we can continue to repay that debt of gratitude in the way that we all seek and that we think is the right thing to do for this country.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I at the outset acknowledge the eloquent words of the member for Chifley on this subject and also the speaker before him, the member for La Trobe, who has a lot of experience from the law enforcement perspective. I join my colleagues from both sides of the chamber in speaking on this statement by the Prime Minister. We are united in the statement by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. As we speak today, we awoke to more awful news on our television screens. Our hearts go out to the family concerned for the trauma that they are suffering, which is just unspeakable.

As the member for Chifley indicated, we need many things. If I could surmise: we need clarity of purpose, we need determination, but we also need unity of purpose. As we speak on this motion, we of course all support the considered action that is being taken. We need to make sure that our agencies are the best resourced that they can be. As the member for Chifley said, when ASIO speaks we should listen. Whilst it is a natural inclination to shy away from things far away—that is a natural human emotion—it is not one that we can ignore. As the member for Chifley indicated, it is far away and it is close to home; that is the great difficulty. As the Prime Minister outlined in his remarks yesterday and as all of us in this place know all too well, there are some 60 Australians currently fighting abroad—extremists, terrorists, doing the most unspeakable things. As experts in the field have indicated—something that is quite obvious—once radicalised, those people, if they return to Australia, will not return to any state of civility that they lived in a long time ago.

A colleague in the other place, Senator David Fawcett, wrote an opinion piece in the Adelaide Advertiser earlier in the week. He again pointed out that the preventative action our law enforcement agencies had been able to take had been very successful. Little did the 92,000 fans attending the 2005 AFL Grand Final know that a major terrorist attack had been averted. He wrote about this in great detail—about how it was now public knowledge that a planned terrorist attack on the MCG was averted. And I am quoting him now:

Central to this and achieving successful convictions was the targeted retention of metadata over 16 months by the Victorian Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP)—

as part of a joint operation. A similar case arose in the member for Chifley's home state at the Holsworthy army base. As the member for Chifley said, 'When the head of ASIO speaks, we should listen.'

I acknowledge this is very different for Australians. We are commemorating the Centenary of Anzac, and we think, don't we—because we have grown up this way—of wars with defined starts and finishes, between nations and governments? This is not like that. It has been going a long time. Most people would think of the start as September 11, although in reality it began before then. And it will go for a long time yet, I suspect, as the experts have said, for many decades. So, in many parliaments time, those who follow us will be grappling with these issues in some form or another. That is difficult for the public because in some ways there is no end in sight. That is very difficult.

In wars that have defined boundaries and defined nations in them, the sacrifices have greater clarity. As the Prime Minister has, rightly, outlined, we need the best resources we can have. Those security agencies need the best tools they can have. They are two vital ingredients among many. There is an old saying that bears repeating, and that is: 'Freedom isn't free'. So on the metadata issue: that is nothing like the sacrifices of freedoms and civil liberties in World War I or World War II, but it is something we need to bear in mind in terms of the challenge we face.

Let me just finish by reaffirming something that the member for Chifley said, and the Prime Minister said it yesterday:

The threat is extremism—not any particular community. The target is terrorism—not religion.

All Australians can be united on that front against the very, very small minority who are participating in this unimaginable horror. But as we have all said, the approach that is being taken is not only the right one, it is the responsible one.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember calling my wife in the middle of the night on September 11 and waking her and saying—I will never forget the words—'The world has gone mad.' Of course, that was as I watched the horrific footage of a jet ploughing into the Twin Towers. The world really had gone mad. It was impossible for me to be able to grasp the enormity of what I was seeing, and the reality of what I was seeing. I know that there were millions of people around the world feeling that way. But from that moment forward, terrorism—extreme Islam—in that form, has in fact impacted the freedoms of every person in the western world.

In this parliament in the last week we have been talking about extra hundreds of millions of dollars. How many trillions of dollars have been spent around the world? How many laws have been passed that have been argued about because they have infringed and impinged upon people's freedoms, freedoms that we just took for granted? It is because of a small minority of people, who have taken a religious fervour to a degree that is insane, that has required this to happen.

So when people say that this is a conflict on the other side of the world, it impacts us today. It impacted us yesterday and it will impact us tomorrow. It impacts us financially. What good could we be doing in health, in education and in infrastructure in this country—and in Britain, and in New Zealand, and in Canada, and in America and so many other places—if we were not having to spend so much money protecting what we should not need to protect, in the way that we are, and they are our freedoms. Our freedoms are what make us great. It is our democracy that sets us apart. It is those things combined that says, 'These and these are our values. And the people that we are are a result of those values, that democracy and those freedoms.'

I agree, and I support, the thrust of what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. However, the Prime Minister said, 'There is no likelihood, and there is no consideration, for ground troops by either America or Australia.' I would say today, in the cold light of the facts that are before us, nothing can be off the table. When we remove options from the table, we embolden our enemies. And as hard as that is to say—and I am not a warmonger, far from it—I am saying that we need to keep every element open to us, so that we can destroy and eliminate this threat to our way of life, to our democracies and to our freedoms.

Let us go from here to home. We talk about young men and some young women going to these foreign lands to be radicalised. But as one man wrote to me yesterday, he said, 'Surely they have already been radicalised, otherwise they would not be heading to the airport.' And, Sir, you are right. They have been. But how much more radicalisation goes on? How much more extremism, once they leave and they band with these people, when they are trained to kill, to kill without mercy, to kill without consideration, to kill without any sort of compunction or thought is beyond most people's rational thought? But that is what they are. They are equipped, they are trained and they are indoctrinated to a point beyond most of our life's experience, thank God. So, in destroying the places in which they receive that training, where they receive that indoctrination, where they receive that hatred for everything that is true and what we believe in in democracy and freedom, must be the highest priority of the world.

Today we stand in this parliament feeling deeply about what we are saying. However, when this moment passes, when this immediate threat is extinguished, it will not be extinguished. Let me recant, when the flame is dampened, but not extinguished, that flame will burn brightly again. And when it does, it will attract other young men and women around the world who will seek to do harm in their communities and in other places. It must be stopped.

So, I say to the world, that the UN today is calling for the world, as one, to act. We have Islamic nations, some who have appalling records themselves but see what is happening here as such an extreme that they too must act. But what happens after that moment passes? What happened after the moment passed on September 11?

We go back into our shells, we try and protect ourselves the best that we can, but we do not reach out to try and extinguish the flame. The world must act as one today, tomorrow and for however long it takes to extinguish the flame of hatred that seeks to destroy our way of life.

These are long-term commitments. They are expensive commitments. But reflect on the fact that we have already had things as dear to Australians as a grand final at the MCG potentially becoming a bloodbath—and only the extreme success of our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have prevented that. At what cost does this come? The cost of doing nothing or doing too little will mean that we will, in the end, be responsible for some of the atrocities that I do not believe may occur, but will occur. They have in the past and they will again, unless we take complete control of the situation.

I will say a few words about our Islamic community here. I know they wish to be part of the solution, but they have not covered themselves in glory with the way in which they have attended to these issues in the last week or two. You may not be the leader of an Islamic community, but if you are a person of Islamic faith you have the same power as I do, and any other Australian does, to write letters to the press or get onto talkback radio and voice in unequivocal terms your total disdain for what is happening in the name of the religion you hold true. Anyone has the right to try and persuade another in this country to their way of belief, and long may it be so. But that is where it starts and that is where it ends. Australia looks to the Islamic community here—not only its elected leaders and its officials, but also its general public, those who do not have a position of authority other than that they are empowered by having the power of democracy and freedom of speech to exercise it and condemn these actions. Let us all walk as one, not as Australians of Islamic faith and those of non-Islamic faith. Let us all walk as one; let us speak as one; let us condemn it for what it is and let us identify as best we can those who would seek to go overseas and come back to cause pain. It is within our power to do so.

We have to be vigilant. We have to want to do it. And if we do, both in our own country—as individuals, as communities and as governments—and as an international community of both sovereign nations and united nations, then we can actually make a difference here. The battle will be long. The battle will have setbacks. But what we are playing for is something that has developed over hundreds of years, and that is the freedom of speech, the freedom of belonging and the freedom of religion.

Above all else in this country, the rule of law is one law for all, and I will advocate that for as long as there is breath in my body. I say to all leaders as they contemplate these issues: do not just focus on the immediate. The humanitarian needs are great; deal with them. But containment will not meet the needs of a world that faces a devastation and a hatred like we have never seen before. We act now, we act decisively and we act as one. If we do not, it will be us and our democracy that pays the penalty in the years to come, and no-one will thank us for our inaction.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I acknowledge the contributions of all those who have participated in this discussion so far and those who will follow. I want to make the point at the outset that, clearly, the circumstances of our actions in Iraq today are very different from those of 2003. Indeed, it could be argued—I think cogently—that we are where we are now because of the legacy and folly of the misadventure of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As an active participant in the debate at the time I recall when, on Tuesday 18 March 2003, the then Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, said:

The Prime Minister today, in a reckless and unnecessary act, has committed Australia to war.

I remember the arguments we had about whether or not there were links between Iraq and the events of September 11. It would appear there were no links. There were no links between Iraq and the Bali bombings, no evidence that Iraq was a real and present threat to our security and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. There was no international support and no support from the Iraqi government. Yet we, in an act of historical folly, committed ourselves to war and the rest, as they say, sadly, is history, with Iraq now tortured by the sectarianism and now the barbarism of ISIS.

Today, we do have a legitimate reason to be involved: to intervene in a humanitarian crisis where tens of thousands of lives are at risk. We know that among those perpetrating these massive unseemly murderous barbaric assaults on human decency are indeed some Australian citizens. We are now in the position, at the request of the United States through President Obama and with the support of the Iraqi government, to be committing ourselves as the Prime Minister has done to further actions in Iraq. We do so in the full knowledge, unlike in 2003, that the world community believes that we should be taking action. Just as it was agreed that we should have taken action, and did, in the first Gulf War. The UN Secretary-General has called for the world community to take decisive action and pointed out clearly that international terrorism has global concerns, and that we need a unified international approach to the defeating of terrorism.

I was attracted recently by an article written by Gareth Evans in The Australian on Tuesday in which, in referring to whether or not our actions in the decisions that have been made were legitimate or not, he made these observations:

These generally accepted criteria of legitimacy are that the atrocities occurring or feared are sufficiently serious to justify, prima facie, a military response; that the response has a primarily humanitarian motive; that no lesser response is likely to be effective in halting or averting the harm; that the proposed response is proportional to the threat; and that the intervention will actually be effective, doing more good than harm.

Later in the same article, he said:

So as things now stand, the only justification—moral, political or military—for renewed external military intervention in Iraq is to meet the international responsibility to protect victims, or potential victims, of mass atrocity.

I believe that these are troubling times and we know they are troubling times. We are concerned and we should be concerned about events in the Middle East and particularly with what the ISI has been doing. I believe that it is appropriate that we are involved in the manner in which the Prime Minister has determined. I think it is important that we accept the right of the Prime Minister and the executive of government to make this determination and that it should not be a determination which is made through the parliament. I do believe that parliament should have the right, and has the responsibility, to debate the issues but that it is inappropriate, and I think it belies our own history, for us to be put in a position where the security of this nation could be threatened by a folly inside this parliament. I will not go into explaining what that means. I am sure all of us know what I am referring to given the structure of our parliament today.

I have said it before: I opposed and voted against the resolution by Prime Minister Howard to commit Australians to Iraq in 2003. That was a wrong decision; it was a bad decision. It was a decision that undermined our national interests. Nevertheless, it was taken and we now wear the folly of that decision. But at the same time, we need to recognise and acknowledge that when those fighting men and women of the Australian Defence Force go into action, in this case in a limited way through the use of air assets, they are doing so on our behalf. They are doing so to protect our national interests and are doing so at the direction of the Australian government. We owe them our 100 per cent support. I know that members of this parliament will give them that support.

We need, I think, to acknowledge that we have a role in this place. Our role in this place is to make sure that the government is held accountable, but also to make sure that decisions which are necessarily taken because of our national security interests are allowed to be taken in an appropriate way. I note that in this particular case the Prime Minister, through his officers, has been consulting with the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is as it should be.

But I also believe that we in this country have a responsibility to understand what is happening here at home; to be more involved in understanding what leads people to take the silly decision—the disastrous decision; the murderous decision—to go across and participate in this atrocious genocide in Iraq. We need, as others have said, to target those terrorists. We should not be targeting religions; we need to understand the importance of acceptance of our diversity, to understand the importance of maintaining that diversity and not allowing ourselves to be cowed by the actions of ruthless and murderous thugs. It seems to me that we in this place have a primary responsibility to show strong leadership in this regard.

I am very pleased with the very positive role which is being played by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for foreign affairs in supporting the decisions taken by the government. I do not think, by the way, that we add anything to the discussion by the foreign minister attacking members of this parliament for having a different view from her on whether or not the parliament should be allowed to debate the issues around this matter. I do not believe that is appropriate and I do not believe it helps. I think what we should be doing is talking about our responsibilities in this parliament to support our people on the ground, to understand our national interests and to make sure that we provide appropriate support where it is required.

As I said earlier, I do believe that we do have a responsibility in this place to debate these issues. I think it is important that the government introduce a motion at some point. It would be a wise thing to do, to test the mood of the parliament—certainly the House of Representatives—and I encourage them to do so. It will not lose anything. We are committed to supporting the government. I know that members of the opposition will take that responsibility very seriously. But a debate does not hurt. I would encourage people to participate in this discussion as a way of testing the water and, indeed, showing their support for the decisions which have been taken by the government and supporting our troops as they embark on very dangerous and potentially tragic missions in the Middle East.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to be speaking on this issue today. It is a very important issue before the parliament, as the previous speaker said.

Obviously, our thoughts go out to those RAAF personnel and other ADF personnel, who are involved in the mission in Iraq at this time. We think of them and we think of their families, as we do think of all those people who are caught up in what is a very serious set of events in Iraq.

Labor's approach to this issue is framed by three things. First of all, it is framed by a conscious attempt to fulfil a humanitarian goal in protecting innocent people—refugees and others—who are fleeing violence and murder and people who would do them harm. We have a responsibility to protect those people; the world has a responsibility to protect those people. Secondly, we want to encourage the Iraqi government to reach out to all those disaffected communities in Iraq and come to some sensible set of governance arrangements which will see Iraq become peaceful and stable. That is critical. Thirdly, we want to remove the motivations for people, whether through malice or an intent to murder or through folly, to go and fight in this part of the world for ISIS.

Of course, the history of Iraq hangs heavily over this debate—not just the events of 2003, but events before that. Iraq obviously had a history of colonialism. It is quite an interesting history, if you read something about it, and that should not be lost in the debate. It does hang over the events there. Similarly, we are reminded of what James A. Baker warned George Bush Sr of after Gulf War I—that if there was foreign intervention in Iraq, the sectarian and tribal tensions would be potentially released and create the very situation that we see today.

Sadly, that very sensible advice to George Bush Sr was ignored in 2003. I think the great issue there was not that there was just not enough debate about whether to go to war but there was no debate about what would happen after the war, and particularly not enough attention was taken to how that community, which was wracked by dictatorship and wracked by war—would respond to the situation post-war. That was a very fatal flaw in the planning—both military and civilian—post-Gulf War II.

We now find Iraq dealing with vicious sectarianism, with the aftermath of dictatorship and war. As I said before, governance is a very serious issue in resolving those tensions. I think the Kurds, who are obviously now the beneficiaries of Australian military and civilian aid, may well be a model for governance and federalism. The dispersal of power to regions may also be a model that Iraq and its governance may wish to strongly consider when they come to resolving some of the issues around the conflicts in that country.

I think that the centralisation of power in Iraq, the idea that various communities—religious, tribal and otherwise—can be forced to share in a very strong central government is a notion that perhaps is flawed and it should be given some consideration by Iraqis themselves. Obviously it is up to them how they govern themselves, but it would seem to me that there are some drivers within these conflicts that are based around that.

Of course, it goes without saying that Islamic State or ISIL—however they want a frame themselves—is a murderous and tyrannical organisation which prays on the people of Iraq and prays on people, whatever their religion, whatever their tribe and whatever their sect. If you oppose them they will deal with you in the most murderous and intolerant fashion.

And so, when we come to analyse the responsibilities we have and the responsibilities the world has, of course, the principles of the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine—that of having a just cause; having correct intentions; taking action as the final resort; seeking legitimate authority, in this case from the Iraqi government; having a proportional response; and having a reasonable prospect of success at protecting life and protecting those under threat—are all important principles which we would apply. The previous speaker talked about Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of this country, whose very good article in TheAustralian yesterday has been a guide to how we should judge these actions and of course, we do take those principles very, very seriously. The 'responsibility to protect' doctrine makes this a fundamentally different situation to that which occurred in 2003 and the aftermath.

We also need greater regional engagement, and we should be aware that there are some nine million refugees as a result of the conflict in Syria and they are pouring into places like Lebanon and Jordan. There is a very serious situation there and we should give very serious consideration to how we deal with that. We know that these mass movements of refugees caused a huge problem for Afghanistan and Pakistan post the Soviet invasion and were the cause of some instability in that region a generation on. We need to give consideration to how we assist those people and how they are dealt with in terms of the peace and stability of the region.

As I said before, ISIL are criminals and heretics. They are not freedom fighters. They are not representatives of the Sunni tribes. They are heretics. They are not representative of an Islamic state or of Islam itself. British imams and scholars issued a fatwa condemning them as tyrannical and extremist, but most importantly as a heresy to Islam.

An honourable member: And Indonesia.

And Indonesia too. And this is not the first time that this has been done. In 2005, the King of Jordan, King Abdullah, got the biggest gathering of Islamic scholars together to issue similar fatwas against extremism. We should acknowledge that fact because it helps to isolate this particular group as a bunch of criminals and heretics, rather than the way they wish to present themselves in social media and other propaganda.

We want to take away, as I said before, the motivation for foreign fighters. Obviously, there are people there who are bent on murder and malice; but I can imagine that there are an awful lot of people who think they are going there for that and end up in very dangerous situations themselves, as part of the folly of youth. Of course, people can get enthusiastic and get caught up in situations, perhaps intentionally in the beginning, but we need to be cognisant of the nature of propaganda, that people can get swept up in it and that that can be harmful to themselves and others.

We need to have measured conduct in this area, but we support the government's actions in this regard. There is, I think, a unanimity in this parliament and I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their support. And I think the Prime Minister deserves credit for his actions in this area, and the foreign minister as well. It is sensible for Australia to be unified in its actions; to unify our own community and to engage in the world in a productive way, in a way that is responsible and in a way that, most of all, protects the slaughter of innocents.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is ironic that today I rise to talk about and endorse the words of the Prime Minister when today is National Flag Day. A day when we celebrate our national flag. If you think about what is on our flag, it is some of the values that we hold dear. Sometimes we just look at it and see a bit of red in the corner and a lot of blue in the Southern Cross, but there is actually the flag of Saint George, the flag of Saint Andrew and the flag of Saint Patrick. And in that Union Jack that forms part of our flag is the story of 400 years of evolving around the value of democracy, evolving around the value of human rights, a law that allows the individual to be confronted before the executive, laws that look after ensuring that there is freedom to vote, freedom to express. We have that in our flag, and sometimes we take it for granted.

It is ironic as we compare their journey with the ISIS flag—a flag that has really come to represent terrorism and what I think is misguided aggression and hate. It is very important that we understand that it took us as a country—and we were the recipients of this, because of our British heritage—a 400-year journey to understand and value democracy. What we see in the Middle East is some people who choose to exploit a vacuum where terror is allowed to take place. Australia's role in this is very good. That is, we are essentially supporting the Western world to say that we will not stand by and allow genocide to happen. We will not stand by and watch the murder of potentially millions of people. We will not stand by and have thousands of women being forced into sex slavery. We will not stand by and watch beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions. It is appropriate that countries who have the means and have the sense of right and wrong defend those who, because of a vacuum, cannot defend themselves.

I want to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister when he said that Australia is:

… not inclined to stand by in the face of preventable genocide either.

Australia is not a country that goes looking for trouble, but we have always been prepared to do what we can to help in the wider world.

The people in my electorate are very fair-minded, peace-loving Australians, but they believe that it is important that we have a well-funded defence system, and they believe that it is important that we have a very good executive to make decisions when decisions have to be made. I think it is right that it is the executive's role to decide on matters such as this. I think it is right not only for the timeliness of response but also for the strategic importance and protection of our troops, who have to be the sharp end of delivering what comes from the discussions that start in this House. And I think it is right that we do the best we can to stand up for justice and to stamp out evil.

It is very easy to hypothecate in hindsight about wisdom, to say that we should have done things differently in the first Gulf War and the second Gulf War and with the removal of Saddam Hussein. I think it shows a level of arrogance amongst people who did not have the facts at their fingertips at the time to say, 'If I was there I would have done this' or 'If I was there I would have done that'. Ultimately, decisions that involve conflict and that involve many different countries are fluid. We cannot, in all best judgement, necessarily guarantee an outcome. And what we have at the moment is a vacuum. We thought Iraq was moving towards peace, but we are seeing that people with extreme views are seeking to capitalise on that vacuum, and capitalising on that vacuum is the very worst outcome for the people of Iraq.

I will conclude with some fairly short comments. The Australian government must stand up for what is right. The Australian government must stand with the rest of the world to stomp out extremism. We do not believe that this is about one religion. We believe that this is built on extreme views that even Muslim countries around the world are now making it very clear that they will not tolerate. When I was in Indonesia two weeks ago it was quite pleasing to hear the executive of the Indonesian government come out and say, 'We do not support ISIS or their aims.' I hope they are successful. Our prayers and thoughts are with the Australians who have to go out and deliver good aid, deliver assistance to those at this time. Our prayers and thoughts are with the executive of our government, for wisdom as they consider these tough decisions. I commend the Prime Minister for the role he has been taking and wish the executive well for wise decision making over the coming months and weeks.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cartoon figure Mr Magoo was a retiree who managed to get himself in absurd situations because of his nearsightedness, which was compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. I am reminded of the character's punchline: 'Magoo, you have done it again!' when reading the analysis of foreign correspondent Paul McGeough. Mr McGeough is of course the biographer of Hamas boss Khalid Mishal and one of the few people in the world who regards him as a moderate. His so-called authoritative analysis—not! as young people put it these days—was his scoop that the then Iraqi leader Iyad Allawi personally shot prisoners in a Baghdad jail.

The thing that ties those comments together with his analysis of what is happening—it is very similar to the Greens' analysis of the situation in Iraq—is anti-Americanism. You cannot judge international events simply through an ideological framework without looking at them afresh, as the Leader of the Opposition has, as the member for Wakefield has and as other members of the opposition have in supporting the government. We do not do that simply because we want to parrot the government. We do it from an ethical point of view, as the member for Wakefield has explained.

We have seen Mr McGeough and the Greens push the near-sighted argument that Australia should not be involved in Iraq, because Iraq is more dangerous than ever. In an article for Fairfax on Friday, Mr McGeough described every possible danger that the Australian military will face in Iraq. However, he failed to balance his analysis with the threat that a permanent terrorist state in northern Iraq and Syria would pose not just to Iraqi minorities but to countries around the world, including Australia. It is very regrettable to see our country ranked in the Economist magazine as the country with the fourth-highest number of people, proportionally, in ISIS—we are punching above our weight in a category we would not like to be in. We have to admit that there is a problem. That is the first part to a correct analysis of this situation.

Labor, along with the Australian government and a growing list of countries around the world, do not share the Greens Magoo-like blindness. As the opposition leader explained on Monday, Labor believes that the terrorist state that has been proclaimed in Iraq represents a threat to Australian national security unlike one we have ever faced. Of course, the situation does not demand that Australia would send any infantry formations as we did in the Iraq war. No-one is talking about boots on the ground. We are talking about humanitarian assistance to besieged minorities. We are perhaps talking about some kind of air assistance to prevent ISIS fanatics besieging other minorities and to give some assistance to Iraqi or Peshmerga Kurdish ground forces. This has not been asked for by the Iraqi government, but when a new Iraqi government is properly formed and does make a request for this it is something Australia could perhaps consider.

Developments in Syria and Iraq are something I have spoken about many times. The issue of Australians going to join terrorist groups in the Middle East is one I have taken up since the second half of last year. In my view, the Attorney-General has focused on this too late. For the information of the Greens political party, the scores of Australians fighting in Iraq and Syria pose a threat to us because they might return home radicalised, with skills that would enable them to be involved in a mass casualty attack in Australia. That these returned fighters are capable of such actions has already been demonstrated. In May this year, Mehdi Nemmouche, a French citizen who is known to have fought with ISIS and who travelled through this part of the world before he returned to Belgium, murdered four people in the Jewish museum in Brussels. A battle hardened veteran of ISIS, he coldly took out a Kalashnikov and shot each of them in the head. More recently, Australia and the wider world were horrified to see the video of a British terrorist brutally murder American journalist James Foley, and the proud tweet by an Australian, Khaled Sharrouf, of a hideous photo of him and his son holding up severed heads.

The doyen of Australian political commentators, Paul Kelly, argued that that photo of the Australian boy being ripped from the suburbs of Australia by his jihadist father into the horrors of Syria and Iraq was an iconic moment in Australian political perceptions of this issue. Khaled himself has tweeted:

… if I wanted to attack yous I could have so easily. …I love to slaughter [Australians] … Allah loves it when u dogs r slaughtered.

Even the self-proclaimed leader of this group, the self-styled caliph, Baghdadi, despite the insouciance of Senator Milne, said in Iraq in 2006 when released from custody by the United States authorities:

… we will meet again in New York.

If Senator Milne does not understand what that means, I will translate it for her. These people want to bring their views, their activities, their terrorism, to Australia, to Europe, to the United States. Australian members of ISIS will go to any lengths to commit murder. In July an Australian ISIS member, known as Abu Bakr al Australi, blew himself up outside a Shia mosque killing five people and injuring 40. There was another poor, 19-year-old, deranged young fellow from Brunswick in Melbourne who was the second suicide bomber of ISIS. These things affect us, Senator Milne and Senator Rhiannon. Preventing young Australians being involved in this certainly should form part of our motivation in seeing that ISIS is not successful. Al Australi's act is one example of the countless massacres, rapes and other acts of savagery that ISIS have affected on minorities in Iraq and Syria.

In an emergency debate on Monday, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Flavia Pansieri, said that her reports:

… reveal acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale.

The UN report was based on 480 interviews and documentary evidence. It said:

Children have been present at the executions, which take the form of beheading or shooting in the head at close range. … Bodies are placed on public display, often on crucifixes, for up to three days, serving as a warning to local residents.

Various sources indicate that thousands of defenceless Yazidis, Christians, Kurds and Shia civilians have been massacred by ISIS in the last few months. All of us speak on this in the parliament. I am sure even the Greens were shocked to see on YouTube, just recently, 250 near naked Syrian soldiers marched off to be machine gunned by these brutes. Earlier we saw the same thing happening to 1,500 members of the Iraqi Army. Again, it was broadcast on YouTube. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, in recent weeks, ISIS has sold 300 Yazidi girls and women into sexual slavery after they were captured by its fighters in Syria.

The Egyptian religious authority, Dar al-Ifta, has recently called for ISIS to be referred to as al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria. The Dar al-Ifta hopes to help demonstrate to non-Muslims that this group's extremist ideology and depravity do not represent Islam. Dar al-Ifta's intervention is one of the many examples of moderate and, frankly, not so moderate, Islamic groups condemning ISIS's behaviour. For example, Indonesia's Ulema Council has issued a fatwa against QSIS. Even Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheik Abdulaziz Al al-Sheik, has described QSIS as 'enemy number one of Islam'. As well, the member for Wakefield pointed out that prominent British imams have issued a fatwa against them. I agree that we should not be honouring these murderers and rapists with their illustrious name of choice. So, from now on, I am going to refer to them as al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria.

The Leader of the Opposition stated on Monday, that QSIS:

… is an enemy of humanity engaged in crimes against humanity.

He said further that QSIS's:

… enemy is the very existence of peace; it is the presence of justice; it is freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom itself.

Iraq and Syria are far away, but we must not be nearsighted. Australians, like other people around the world of good will, may well see violence brought home to them. Only the blind would refuse to admit that these people, the QSIS, are a problem for the whole world. Mr McGeogh and the Greens may be happy to remain nearsighted and cite only the problems and be in denial, as is his namesake, Mr Magoo, but QSIS is anything but a joke. Faced with evil it is impossible to relativise ISIS. We must act. I commend both the government and the opposition for identifying this as a separate and new problem and for acting in a measured and balanced way without going to the extent that we did in the previous war in Iraq.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning the world learned that a second American journalist had been murdered in the civil war in Iraq. It was met with international outrage. It is understandable that citizens of other countries attend their view to an atrocity when it touches one of their own, but this does not overshadow the more than 5,000 Iraqis who have been slaughtered or the 12,000 who have been wounded, enslaved, abused and otherwise had their lives cut short at the hands of the murderous criminals who are masquerading as a cause. The United Nations has reported ISIS and its allies have committed 'systematic and egregious violations' against civilians, including mass killings, sexual violence, kidnapping, destruction of property and attacks on places of religious worship and of great historical importance. These must be resisted.

To deploy Australian forces to another country—to engage in operations in a theatre of war—is probably one of the gravest decisions any country can make. I believe it is proper that these decisions are made by governments, who necessarily have more information and intelligence at their fingertips, and are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their decisions. That does not mean that parliament does not have a role. It is equally proper that the Australian people are engaged in this debate and, through their representatives in parliament, can express their views.

Accordingly, in his address to parliament this week, our leader, Bill Shorten, committed Labor's support to the government, based on the following three principles. First, responding effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and relieve suffering. Second, promoting a unity government in Iraq that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion—a government that would reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities—enabling effective security and control of Iraqi territory. He said that we must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position. Third, denying motivation and opportunity for Australian fighters to join with the ISIS forces in Iraq. This statement enjoys my full support and the full support of every Labor member.

This morning it was reported that the foreign minister said that this support is in the face of 'gritted teeth' from Labor's Left. I do not know if these comments are true, but if they are accurately reported, they are both unfortunate and ill-informed. It may suit the political objectives of one side of politics or another to pick a fight on the issue, but it is not in the long-term interest of an informed debate and it is certainly not in the public interest.

I have never felt more strongly about the importance of the need to confront the barbarity of ISIS and for Australia to play its part in that. This is not an issue of Right versus Left. This is an issue of right versus wrong. To those who may question why the Left of Australian politics should support this proposition I simply say this: it is consistent with our values and our history. On the Left, we believe in the fundamental equality of all humankind, in the dignity of humanity, and in solidarity with those who face imminent persecution. These beliefs must dictate our action. We cannot stand idly by. How can we call for a regional solution to the flow of refugees within our region and at the same time shrink from an in-country solution to the persecution that drives refugees into camps and into the boats that meet our shores. It simply does not make sense. It is also consistent with our long and proud history of being on the right side of these matters.

It was John Curtin who famously turned to the United States and, in fighting the Pacific war in our nation's darkest hour, forged an alliance that has continued over 60 years and stands us in good stead today. It was the actions of a Labor government that gave birth to that alliance. It is also important that we contemplate the circumstances of John Curtin himself. He did not enter the national political fray as the member for Fremantle or as Australia's greatest wartime Prime Minister. He actually entered national politics 25 years earlier as an anti-war and anti-conscription activist. He was an absolutely fervent critic of the European slaughter, but he was also fervently opposed to the conscription policy of the early decades of our nation's federation. He was actually jailed for his anti-war and anti-conscription beliefs. But 25 years later he put the interests of the nation first in ensuring that we were well prepared to meet the onslaught of the Japanese Imperial Army. It is the legacy of John Curtin which informs the actions of Australian Labor and should inform the position of the Left of Australian politics when you contemplate the challenge that is before us today.

Some say that we should not go down this direction, that there must be an alternative. Some have argued that we should look to the alternatives, and that is indeed right. It is the right question to ask but it is hard to fathom how the alternatives will halt the slaughter. If I honestly thought that a boycott, a protest, a sanction or a prayer group was going to stop the mass genocide and slaughter of minorities in northern Iraq and throughout the Middle East that is going on today, then I would agree, let us use the alternatives. But I do not think anybody who stands in this parliament today can honestly suggest that those actions are going to be sufficient.

Many have pointed to the disastrous 2003 war in Iraq as a dangerous precedent that we need not follow. I agree with them. I actually opposed both of the Iraq wars. I am now willing to stand here today and say that I was wrong about the first, but I was absolutely right about the second. But this is not a repeat of 2003 when a pre-emptive strike was being led against a sovereign leader in a country, albeit an enemy. This is a situation where the sovereign government of a country is calling on the nations in the rest of the world for their support and assistance, and Australia as an international citizen must answer that call.

It also answers the call of the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon, because many have said that we should take this to the United Nations first. I welcome the statements of the Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon, who has called on the international community to engage. He has pointed out that there are over 1.2 million displaced persons in the region. He has pointed out all of the atrocities that are going on and he is calling on the international community to stand to, and indeed we should.

It is right for people in this place to be concerned about the possibility of mission creep. I share their concerns. But can I say as a representative of my electorate and as a member of this parliament, we must be very mindful of our obligations to the international community and to our own community. In a world where you can jump on a plane in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and many other places around the country and be in a theatre of war within 30 hours of departing our shores, then the opposite is also the case. We do not have the luxury of saying that this is somebody else's problem happening somewhere else and we need not be involved. It is not good enough for us in the wealthy countries of the world to say that we give speeches and money while the poor people give their lives and give blood. We are better than that as a parliament. We are better than that as a people. I wholeheartedly support the actions of the government and the Leader of the Opposition and I associate myself with the comments of the shadow foreign affairs spokesman earlier in this place today. We cannot stand idly by.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to rise today to speak on matters unfolding in Iraq following the recent statement by the Prime Minister. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and our foreign minister Julie Bishop on the leadership shown following the unfortunate international events of late.

Sadly, Iraq is once again the subject of international condemnation for the way in which its citizens have been brutalised and terrorised by Islamic militants. To say that it has had a chequered past is of course an understatement: chemical attacks on the Kurds, its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the attempted assassination of George Bush in 1993, the eventual toppling of Saddam Hussein's government by the US in March 2003 followed by years of violent conflict with different groups competing for power—and the list goes on. More recently, with the fall of Saddam Hussein, the world has held its breath to see whether Iraq citizens could get on with their lives without fear of violence or ultimately death. But, sadly, this was not to be. Violence soon escalated and it would appear victims were not discriminated against. We have seen numerous heart-rending examples of this. Back in 2010 we saw 52 Christians killed by militants and Shia Muslims have been targeted on numerous occasions in waves of attacks, killing scores of people. Fast forward to 2013 and the UN estimated the death toll of civilians at 7,157—a dramatic increase and more than double the previous year's figure of 3,238. Now in 2014 we have witnessed Sunni rebels, led by ISIS, carry out unimaginable atrocities against citizens of Iraq. Thousands of people have fled their homes to Mount Sinjar to escape the militants.

The Australian government's concern is to protect innocent Iraqi men, women and children who, like us Australians, simply want to live a life without fear and look after their families. To quote our Prime Minister, what Iraq is currently facing is a humanitarian catastrophe. Australia has now joined with international partners to help the anti-ISIL forces in Iraq. Our priority is to provide humanitarian aid. We have recently undertaken a successful international humanitarian relief effort airdropping supplies to the thousands of people stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. I am deeply proud that the RAAF will conduct further humanitarian missions. It is quite unimaginable how terrified those Iraqi families—those mothers, fathers and children—must have felt when they were corralled onto Mount Sinjar like animals, like a herd of sheep, not knowing whether they would be safe or whether they would see the sun come up again. It is such an unthinkable abuse of human rights.

What else is Australia doing? At the request of the US government, we will help transport stores of military equipment, including arms and munitions, to arm the Kurdish fighters as part of a multinational effort—which includes Canada, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and the United States—to undertake this important task. There are risks associated with these activities. However, Australia cannot stand by and do nothing when we learn about mass killings, beheadings and women being forced into sexual slavery. These are acts of genocide.

What is important to note is that Australia's contribution will be coordinated with the government of Iraq and regional countries. At this stage there has been no formal request for Australia to contribute on-the-ground combat forces and there has been no decision taken to become further involved in the conflict. We all hope and pray that it does not come to that.

What we must bear in mind is that, if this militant behaviour can happen abroad, it can happen at home here on the shores of Australia. We have seen many examples of this more recently. That is why this government has announced an increase in funding to bolster the safety of our borders. The number of Australians with international terrorist experience, from all accounts, has increased, so the challenge is just so much greater. Our government is providing an additional $630 million over the next four years to further resource agencies to bolster the counter-terrorism capacity of the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, ASIS, Customs and Border Protection and others. I am very proud that this is new funding. The increased threat of terrorism means increased resources are required. I do not think there is any argument over that. We are also looking at national security laws and our ability to monitor, investigate, arrest and prosecute foreign fighters returning to our shores.

We hope and pray that this unthinkable situation is contained as a matter of urgency. We all know we live in dangerous and unpredictable times and the world is getting smaller by the minute. A modern government must be flexible and able to move swiftly in order to make decisions in the best interests of our country and also as a good citizen of the world. Decisions to become involved in another country's conflict, no matter how abhorrent, are never easy. We know from history that such deliberations and decisions are scrutinised very closely, which makes them that much harder to make, as they should be. We all know that hindsight is a wonderful thing and rarely do historians give a glowing view of countries getting involved in another's dispute, but we have no choice and we may have to participate further.

I therefore commend our government for the assistance it is giving to the Iraqi government. As the threat of terrorism becomes amplified and, as we regrettably learn of more Australians leaving our fair shores to join such militant groups, then, sadly, Australia does not seem to be so far away from Iraq and Syria.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the humanitarian crisis occurring in Iraq and respond to the Prime Minister and opposition leader's statement in the main chamber.

I will begin by acknowledging the sacrifices, in particular, of the journalists who have gone there to provide information to the world, yet have lost their lives in this horrible conflict—Steven Sotloff, James Foley and Bassam Raies and many others, I am sure, who could be named.

Obviously, as politicians, we work in words and beliefs but we tend to come home okay. When journalists go off to provide information to the world, they put themselves in harm's way. I acknowledge their particular sacrifice and offer my condolences to their families.

I have been contacted by many people about the unfolding situation in the Middle East. I have a significant Muslim population in my electorate, and many of them have raised concerns about the process. The other day a rally was held in Brisbane by the Kurdish community seeking further support, and they provided me with a petition. I am going to read from a few of the people who wrote to me direct from my electorate—there were many other people from outside my electorate, obviously. They said:

I urge the Australian Government to send further humanitarian aids and military assistance to Kurdistan.

I also ask the Australian Government to recognise the ISIS barbarism on the people of Kurdistan including the Yezidi, Christian and Shabak religious minorities as acts of war, crime and genocide.

I appreciate your efforts and assistance in advance.

The group also wrote to the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and Tania Plibersek, who is the shadow spokesperson in this area. I personally delivered that correspondence to the foreign minister's office. I know that she has been working hard to make sure that the concerns of the Kurdish community and other minorities that have been targeted are being listened to.

To Jwan from Sunnybank Hills, Karen from Yeronga, Mehdi from Yeronga, Shadia from Acacia Ridge, Kardo from Acacia Ridge, Sabir from Acacia Ridge, Sekala from Runcorn, Zana from Runcorn and Mohammad from Sunnybank Hills—to name a few of the people who have written to me—I have passed on your concerns.

Our newspapers and televisions screens have been filled too often with the atrocities that are taking place in Iraq—and, obviously, also in Syria, a country that surely, in terms of taking and accepting refugees, is doing more than almost any other nation at the moment in accommodating displaced people. Maybe Lebanon next door might be doing it tough as well.

This extremist armed group is committing mass atrocities against ethnic minorities in northern Iraq. We understand that and, sadly, we know that because they are adept at placing information about this on social media. As the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters confront these terrorists, civilians remain at risk of further mass atrocities and crimes.

The security situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated, particularly in the Nineveh province and the Kurdish semi-autonomous regions—an area that used to embrace people who were different and not necessarily Kurds. Even though the Kurds have hundreds and hundreds of years of history of being discriminated against, they have been an incredibly generous people. And certainly in my community, they have always been very engaged and supportive.

As a result of these ongoing attacks by the terrorists, these barbaric terrorists, who operate on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, declared a caliphate spanning both countries—something that cannot be allowed to continue, because of the terror that is being reaped on civilians. They, and several associated armed groups, have engaged in widespread fighting with the Iraqi security forces, and they are causing civilian casualties and widespread civilian displacement.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq reported that more than 1,000 civilians were killed during July alone, excluding deaths in Anbar province, and that over 5,000 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year.

Labor's support for the government on the situation in Iraq is underpinned by three key principles. One, we need to respond effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering. Two, we need to promote a unity government in Iraq, which hopefully is only days away—a government that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion, and something that did not flow from the disastrous war from over a decade ago. We need a government that will reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities, enabling effective security, peace, harmony, and control over Iraqi territory. The world community must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position and in a situation where things could deteriorate. The third key principle is that we must deny the motivation and opportunity for any Australians to go and join these foreign fighters.

As the opposition leader Shorten said early in the week:

… every action is a betrayal of millions of good people of conscience who follow that faith.

That is why I am not going to use the term that is regularly used to describe these terrorists, because I do not think that those are words that should be put together. That would be betraying the tenets of their religion, because of the horrific crimes that they are committing at the moment against people. I think from my dealings, and my readings, it would be much more accurate to say that these terrorists do not represent the Islamic faith in any way. I cannot stress that enough.

As a member of the international community, Australia strives to uphold the notion of the Responsibility to Protect. I think the member for Sydney has detailed this in some speeches, and I think Gareth Evans also wrote about it recently in The Australian. The handling of this responsibility is not an easy task. We have to look at our own geography first, obviously—that is what good community members do—but, there comes a time, as we have shown over the last 100 years, when we do step up in Australia. If social media had been as prevalent back in the nineties when atrocities happened in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo, maybe we would have been even quicker to go and do our bit in terms of making sure we protected as many people as possible, when people were being attacked for their religion, culture, faith or ethnicity.

Disagreement continues today about the right level of intervention. I think we can learn from the mistakes made in this parliament in the first Iraqi war, but we need to be very careful, obviously, and make sure that we have everybody on side. If people are going to talk about 'Team Australia', they need to be clear that they are including all Australians, that we are not just being a country that answers solely to whatever the United States says. Australia was pivotal in creating the United Nations, and I think we should always take our lead from the United Nations, not from a two or three member-state initiative. We should always work with the United Nations—that is when we can do the most good for the greatest number of people.

I am glad that we are able to stand up and express our views in this democratic chamber about whether we should go and how we should go. I am particularly proud of the dedicated and professional men and women of our Australian Defence Force. I will mention the Royal Australian Air Force, because they will be doing most of the heavy lifting, both metaphorically and literally, and I know that there will be challenges for those service personnel and their families. A cousin of mine came back recently from the Middle East Area of Operations, the MEAO, and it can be challenging. I know that in the next few weeks it will be particularly so. It saddens me to say that sometimes it is necessary for the international community to take such strong steps, but aid will not do it when people are going to ignore the rules of war and international humanitarian law and execute people, both prisoners and civilians. We need to do more. We need to take stronger steps. I am very confident of the skill and bravery of our Australian defence personnel and I support their efforts in Iraq in assisting the international humanitarian effort to prevent genocide against these beleaguered minorities in northern Iraq.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The tragic events in the United States of 9-11 showed us that we live in a global village, that no-one is an island. Australia's loss of lives in the Bali bombings demonstrated that we are not immune from the world's new kind of war. No longer do the brave men and women of our defence forces go away to distant countries, as their predecessors once did, to fight a war in a fixed location to prevent it spreading, maybe even spreading to Australia. Instead, the new international war, the war against terrorism, can be fought in any country and can strike at any time, even here in Australia.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott was right to offer Australia's support and help to the United States in Iraq when requested to do so. The Prime Minister told the House this week that Australia would help transport arms and military equipment to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in an attempt to counter the advance of ISIL in Iraq. We have already seen that the US air strikes on the ISIL advance did relieve the siege at Mount Sinjar. They have been effective in relieving the siege at Amerli. They have broken the ISIL advance in the Kurdish areas. Australia was involved in humanitarian airdrops to both these locations and will continue separate humanitarian airdrops to provide food and water supplies to people isolated by the militants in Iraq.

Australia has not been asked yet to commit troops on the ground, but we as a nation are not inclined to stand by in the face of preventable genocide. Some Australians are apprehensive about the risk of becoming involved in another conflict in the Middle East as we provide our support to the US in its endeavours to relieve the situation. So far this year more than one million Iraqis have been driven from their homes. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said, we have watched in horror the beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions, and thousands of women have been forced into sexual slavery. It is simply unacceptable on any level. Australia, like other countries, cannot leave the Iraqi people to face this evil alone. It is the right thing to do to help to stop the suffering if we can and to deal with its perpetrators to prevent it spreading.

The Iraqi ambassador to Australia has made it clear that Australia and the US are working with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government. Our embassy in Baghdad is in direct contact with the Iraqi government to secure the necessary approvals to get humanitarian consignments to Erbil, in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Australia is doing what it can to help with the request from the US Obama administration, with the support of the Iraqi government.

We have been told that about 60 Australians are believed to be fighting with terrorist groups across Iraq and Syria. Many of these fighters will seek to return to Australia at some time having become, as the Prime Minister said, accustomed to killing. It is unacceptable. Our government sees them as a serious and growing threat to Australia's security. We cannot expect that they will be law-abiding citizens if and when they return.

The modern war is a global war. It can strike at any time in any country. It is indeed a war on extremism. We must do what we can to prevent it spreading and we have a responsibility as a civilized country to help those already terrorised by this new war. Australia is showing real leadership. Australians indeed are angry and overwhelmingly support the Prime Minister's actions that reflect this anger within the community. Now is not the time to be debating, grandstanding and publicity seeking; now is the time for action. I truly condemn the member for Denison and the Greens for the way they have behaved in this situation. It is not the view of reasonable people in Australia. It is unacceptable, it is publicity seeking and it is grandstanding.

The Prime Minister, with the support of the opposition, is acting decisively and acting in accordance with the Constitution and defence legislation. Just as importantly, the government is doing what is right to keep our nation safe, and this is a fundamental responsibility of government. A humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding and we as a nation simply cannot sit by and watch. I thank the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their leadership, and the opposition for their support. I also wish to thank those military personnel serving—not by choice—on these missions. No doubt these are dangerous circumstances. Our thoughts and prayers are with those people serving with our military forces overseas and their families.

As the member for Lyons, as a representative of the people of Lyons, and from my own personal position, I must make my position quite clear about this. As most reasonable Australians do, I support wholeheartedly the efforts of the government to stamp out what can only be described as extremism. That is the enemy here; radicalised extremists that would do us harm. As a government, our fundamental responsibility is to keep the people of Australia safe and indeed that is what we are doing.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief comments in response to the Prime Minister's statement on Iraq. In 2003 I opposed intervention in Iraq and Australia's involvement in the conflict. I did not believe Australia's involvement to be justified at that time, either morally or legally. I was not in this place then. I voiced my position, as many thousands of Australians did, by taking to the streets. I stand by that position. I think history has vindicated it and there are echoes obviously of 2003 in the tragedy of the circumstances we are debating today.

In the present circumstances, my view is different to that which I took in 2003. The moral case to act today is viscerally compelling. The horrors that have been brought home to us through social media, and indeed the mainstream media, demonstrate the scale of this humanitarian catastrophe, as I think the member for Lyons referred to it. But I am concerned about questions of legality. These are not small questions when we go to issues of military force. They raise some profound issues for all of us in this place. Obviously, when I think about my opposition to the 2003 conflict in Iraq, I also think about conflicts where Western democracies failed to act or failed to act as they ought to have done—I think of Kosovo; I think of Rwanda—and I do note that it is clear that there are grave consequences that can attach to failing to act as well as from interventions.

Further to that, in accepting the grave consequences that may flow from inaction, we cannot divorce the implications of our actions from their consequences and in Iraq, in the Middle East more generally, history does not offer us much encouragement. Of course, the use of military force, recourse to military force, can never be a step lightly taken.

It is of concern to me that this action is not presently the subject of a United Nations Security Council resolution. I would prefer it was so. But this is not a barrier to the action Australia has taken and, in the circumstances, it cannot be one. I am comforted by the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. I am also comforted and, indeed, encouraged by the words of former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans as set out in The Australianyesterday, going to the responsibility-to-protect doctrine:

… no question arises of any breach of international law even in the absence of express UN Security Council authorisation.

He said of the intervention:

Its objective is explicitly humanitarian, to protect civilian populations immediately at risk of genocide or other mass atrocity crimes from the marauding Islamic State militant forces, who in their march across Iraq have already perpetrated atrocities unrivalled in their savagery. And—

importantly, I think, he says:

there is a reasonable prospect that it will be successful in meeting at least this immediate aim.

This immediate aim is a vital aim, and our response, I believe, is proportionate and appropriate. The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Tanya Plibersek, set out the principles that Labor will have regard to in this matter far more eloquently and far more effectively than I can, and I associate myself with all of her remarks, particularly those that touched on the broader regional dynamics and the tragedies that also exist in Syria which create some ongoing problems in terms of both our capacity for humanitarian relief and our present limited capacity for further protective action.

Apart from associating myself with Deputy Leader of the Opposition's remarks, there are four other matters I wish to briefly touch on—firstly, the importance of being able to debate this issue. This is a profound responsibility for all of us as legislators, and I am not convinced, as many in this place are, that it is clearly always the case that the executive government's prerogative should not be the subject of full parliamentary debate. Now is not the time, I believe, to have that debate; but it should not be, in my view, taken as read that we cannot engage in these fundamental questions about Australia's moral responsibilities as an international citizen when it comes to the ultimate exercise of military power.

Secondly, I am thinking, as I am sure all of us are, of the service men and women we are asking to undertake this important and dangerous work in our name and in the name of humanity. My thoughts, like those of all of us, are with those brave men and women.

Thirdly, I represent a community which contains a large number of people of Iraqi origin. I was deeply affected when a delegation came to see me the week before last to talk about their concerns—concerns for their former homeland but also concerns relating to the community here and the prospect of radicalisation. That was a meeting that will stay with me a long time. I will do all I can to stand up for those decent people in that community and to allow them to feel confidence in the democratic institutions of Australian society as well as our concern for their homeland.

Fourthly, more generally, I am concerned about how we speak to and with the Islamic communities across Australia, including the ones in my electorate beyond the Iraqis. It was my very great privilege to be in the chamber to hear the defence of multiculturalism in Australia offered by my friend the member for Chifley, and I associate myself also with his remarks. But I think there is a broader challenge for all of us to stand up for the true principles of Islam, a wonderful and peaceful religion, and not allow there to be any confusion between that faith and the atrocities we are seeing in Syria and Iraq at the moment.

The doctrine of the responsibility to protect puts me in a position where I am comfortable with the actions undertaken by the Australian government and supported by Labor in opposition. At the moment, it is a responsibility to protect. I hope that, should Australia's actions change, there will be an opportunity for all of us as parliamentarians to debate that responsibly, reasonably and in the interests of the international community, particularly those affected by such horrific circumstances.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join my parliamentary colleagues in supporting this motion concerning the recent extremely disturbing developments in Iraq. Just this morning we awoke to more devastating news. ISIL fanatics have reportedly murdered American journalist Steven Sotloff in the most brutal and horrific manner. His murder is a shocking and barbaric act. This is obviously heartbreaking news for Mr Sotloff's family and friends. This is heartbreaking for the United States and for all nations who join together to condemn these most despicable acts of inhumanity.

Mr Sotloff's murder comes just weeks after the murder of another American journalist, James Foley, also at the hands of ISIL. As a former television reporter, this really hits home. These men were doing their job and nothing more. It is only through the courage of journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley that we can begin to comprehend the vile events that are unfolding as ISIL's march of hatred continues in Iraq and Syria.

ISIL is reprehensively using violence to intimidate journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 70 journalists have been killed covering the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The CPJ estimates that approximately 20 journalists are currently still missing in Syria. Many of those missing journalists are believed to be held captive by ISIL. Of course, it is not just journalists who are being murdered by ISIL fighters.

The Prime Minister has dubbed, and rightly so, ISIL a 'death cult' for very good reason. Its reign of terror and hatred has seen thousands of innocent people indiscriminately murdered simply because they do not subscribe to the same beliefs.

In June alone we understand 1,922 people were killed in Iraq and a further 2600 or so people were wounded. Amnesty International has warned of ethnic cleansing on an historic scale. What is at risk in northern Iraq is potential genocide. We have seen beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions and kidnappings. Children and women have been abducted and reportedly raped and killed. Hundreds of women have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery and subjected to the most horrific degradation. Iraqi Human Rights Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani says people have been buried alive. The situation can only be described as a nightmare and the threat is not only to people living in the Middle East.

People from countries like Australia are travelling to the Middle East to take part in this violence. As our government understands, about 60 Australians are on the ground fighting in Syria and Iraq, and about 100 more are providing funding or facilitation. The murderer of James Foley, and also Steven Sotloff, is reportedly a British man. The reality is that the rise of ISIL presents a real threat of terrorist attacks here in Australia. There is a concern that Australians fighting with ISIL will become further radicalised and learn the terrorist trade. If these people come back to Australia it poses a serious threat to national security.

I welcome moves by our government to keep Australia even safer and more secure. The government is investing $630 million to counter violent extremism and radicalisation. This includes $24 million to the Australian Crime Commission to support its efforts against terrorism. New counter-terrorism units are being established at all our international airports, and an additional 80 Border Force officers are being recruited.

I also welcome the humanitarian mission to transport aid and military equipment as part of a multinational effort aimed at helping those at risk from ISIL forces to protect themselves.

I also welcome news that Australia will accept a formal invitation to become an enhanced partner with NATO, reflecting our shared goals in working towards a peaceful international order. I particularly commend the way in which the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop have handled the situation to date as well as the government's moves to keep people safe abroad and at home.

The situation in the Middle East is indeed a highly dangerous one. Doing anything involves serious risks and weighty consequences. But doing nothing involves risks and consequences too. The Chief of the Defence Force has confirmed this morning that an Australian aircraft has joined an airlift of supplies including military equipment to the Kurdish regional government in Erbil. American, British, French, Canadian and Italian aircraft are also involved. Australia is doing what we can to help. Our involvement has been at the request of the Obama administration and with the support of the Iraqi government. Australia remains in close contact with United States and other international partners and we will continue to work to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Iraq and address the security threat posed by ISIL. There has been no formal request for combat forces and no decision taken to get further involved in the conflict. There will be no combat troops on the ground. What is happening currently is a humanitarian intervention with of course the full support of the Iraqi government.

We welcome the comments by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that without addressing this issue we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue. Australia cannot and will not leave the Iraqi people to face alone the evil unleashed by ISIL. It is right that we do everything we prudently can to prevent its spread. It is right that we do everything to protect the innocent men, women and children of Iraq and Syria in the name of freedom and democracy and justice and humanity.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:02