Matters Of Public Importance: The Howard Government's mismanagement of Australia's national security
Transcript -
Parliament House, Canberra - 25 March 2004
SPEAKER—I have
received a letter from the honourable member for Werriwa proposing that a
definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion,
namely:
The Howard
Government's mismanagement of Australia's national security.
I call upon those
members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number
of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
LATHAM—This is a
government in disarray over national security, a government that has compromised
the independence and role of the Australian Federal Police, a government that is
always putting the Liberal Party's political interests ahead of our national
security interests, a government that is defying the obvious—that, while
Australia was a target at the time of September 11, the war in Iraq has made
things worse—a government that sent young Australians to war in Iraq for a
purpose that was not true. As senator Hill said on Tuesday, at least for an hour
or two, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
This is a government
that has diverted effort and resources away from targeting the terrorists and
put them into Iraq and now a government that does not know how to get our troops
out of Iraq. It was easy to race in but it is a government that now does not
know how to get out. It is a government with no exit strategy, no way of getting
the troops home for the defence of Australia. It is a government that, in this
regard, is in total confusion and total disarray.
In May of last year
in New York the Prime Minister was asked about the commitment of troops in Iraq.
The journalist asked:
Do you see it as
months or years …
The Prime Minister
replied:
Well, I certainly
don't see it as years.
He was implying that
he saw it as a matter of months. Then in the parliament yesterday he was asked
the clear question by the member for Griffith about he extent of Australia's ADF
deployment, should it be months rather than years. The Prime Minister's answer
was:
I am very happy to
say it should not be years …
There was the Prime
Minister defining the government's own commitment. Given the fact that Australia
has had a deployment in Iraq for over 12 months already, for the Prime Minister
to honour that commitment of saying it should not be years, he is obliged to
withdraw our troops from Iraq by the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005.
At the beginning of
the answer to the member for Griffith the Prime Minister says he is not in
favour of a timeline, implying that he believes in an open-ended commitment to
our troops in Iraq. In the same parliamentary answer, within the space of a few
minutes, the Prime Minister actually has two positions—first a position of
saying it should not be for years, implying that the troops should be out at the
end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005—and then saying there should be an
indefinite commitment.
This is a government
that is totally confused on the key question of national security. The poor chap
is just spinning around, totally confused and in total disarray about what
should happen to the Australian commitment in Iraq.
Labor's position has
always been clear and principled. We want our troops back as soon as possible
after Australia has discharged its international responsibility. It is of course
logical and right to use the change of sovereignty, the new Iraqi government, as
the turning point. That is why a Labor government elected, say, in September
will ensure—certainly has the intention of having our troops home by
Christmas. That is the Labor position. Our intention is to have our troops home
by Christmas if a Labor government is elected in September. This builds on the
announcement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, from Baghdad, on 14
November last year. He said:
The early
establishment of an interim Iraqi government would also provide Australia with
an appropriate exit strategy from its current formal responsibilities as an
Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
At present, we do not
have such an exit strategy.
Australia now has
such a strategy. It is Labor's strategy of having our troops back by Christmas.
What we are doing is holding the government to their original position when they
said ‘months, not years'; when the Prime Minister said he did not believe in a
commitment that ran into years and that it would not go beyond two years, a
commitment that would have our troops back by Christmas.
All this chopping and
changing by the Prime Minister and the government is plain bad for the defence
of Australia. It is not good policy to be chopping and changing so
comprehensively on such a key issue as national security. As for all these
coalition MPs accusing me of being on the side of al Qaeda—
Mr Ross Cameron
interjecting—
LATHAM—We know that
slur; we have heard it before. It is the same thing that the Minister for
Foreign Affairs said about the police commissioner, Mick Keelty. He said that
the police commissioner was talking in a way that associated him with al Qaeda
propaganda. It is their standard slur. They do not argue the point in the
national interest. When someone does not agree with them, they put the slur out
about al Qaeda.
Government members
interjecting—
LATHAM— I do not
care too much what they say about me, it washes over me totally.
Government members
interjecting—
LATHAM— The
Minister for Foreign Affairs pipes up. I think he has a ladder in his
stocking—he is squirming there so much—but I know one thing for sure, it
ain't the ladder of opportunity running up his leg. He can say these things
about me—he has the member for Parramatta next to him—but they do not worry
me in the slightest, it washes over me. The thing I get worked up about is when
they slur and slander a good man like Mick Keelty. That is when I get worked up.
I am willing to defend him against the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I will
defend him against this government's intimidation of his position and the way in
which he was slurred by the members opposite.
If they want to do
something about al Qaeda other than issue slurs at the doorstops of Parliament
House, what they should recognise is that diverting resources from the real task
of attacking al Qaeda, the real task of targeting the terrorists, diverting
resources into Iraq has not produced the best result. If all the effort, time
and resources that have gone into the war in Iraq went into targeting the
terrorists, the world would be a safer place today, the world would be a better
place.
We found out in
question time today that, in terms of one of the front-line engagements against
the terrorists in Afghanistan, this government have one troop, one soldier. They
are waging a one-man war against terrorism in Afghanistan. So with all the
resources, time and effort that has gone into Iraq, on that real front line, an
active front line, against terror in Afghanistan, they have actually got one
person—a one-man war against terror. It is the misallocation of resources that
this government should be ashamed of.
In terms of our
commitment to bringing the troops back by Christmas, we are interested in and
committed to the defence of Australia—the defence of Australia always, not the
misallocation of resources. There is a public concern in this country that
follows the war in Iraq. The government themselves have said that Australia's
commitments around the globe are quite stretched. We put the defence of
Australia first. Putting the defence and security of Australia first has always
been the Labor way and it always will be in the future.
What we see from this
government is policy failing after policy failing. But they never admit it; they
always say it is a matter of context. So when Mick Keelty speaks the truth that
terrorist activity is linked to participation in Iraq—a statement of
truth—the government make him go out and say, ‘No; it's out of context,' and
make a clarifying statement drafted under the direct supervision of the Prime
Minister. When Senator Hill says that there are no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq—an outbreak of truth—a couple of hours later, there is another
clarifying statement saying that he has been quoted out of context. What was the
context of Senator Hill's remarks on Tuesday? He said:
We went to war in
Iraq to support the Security Council which had to be assured that Saddam Hussein
had got rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Now we are confident that there
are no weapons of mass destruction and there is no dictator that will use them
against his own people or his neighbours.
What ‘out of
context' could there possibly have been? The context was crystal clear. It was
as plain as the nose on the face of the government members opposite. The context
was absolutely clear: ‘Now we are confident that there are no weapons of mass
destruction.'
Then there was the
shameful comment by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, trying to associate Mick
Keelty with al-Qaeda propaganda. Again he says he was quoted out of context, but
again the context is totally clear. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
I think he was just
expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we are getting from
al-Qaeda.
A shocking thing to
say—and something for which he should have apologised publicly in this House
of Representatives.
If they say it is a
government out of context, we know the truth: it is a government out of time. It
is a government that are an absolute shambles when it comes to the good national
security policy of this country. Yet at the end of these debates, at the end of
the disarray on national security, the Tories have the hide to say, ‘Trust us
on national security; we're the only ones who can handle it.' Where in
Australian history was that proposition ever proven or valid? Not prior to World
War II when the Tories left this country underprepared; not during the folly of
Vietnam; not in the misallocation of resources and the difficulties caused by
the war in Iraq; and not after the Keelty affair this week. The Tories have a
shocking record on national security. It is only ever Labor that gets it right
in the defence of Australia, in the best national interest for keeping our
people safe and sound against threats.
So it is time for the
Australian people once more to look to Labor—to look to the future and to look
to Labor. We have no time tunnel we can go down to undo the government's
mistakes, but we have a positive agenda for this nation's national security. Our
first priority is to target the terrorists themselves and to break up their
networks—not repeat the mistakes of Iraq; not fight a war for the wrong core
purpose; not divert resources from finding and destroying the terrorists. What
we need is the real strength of breaking up their networks and targeting
them—having a stronger commitment to targeting the terrorists, not waging wars
against nation states for the wrong purpose. We need a lot better than the
one-man war in Afghanistan.
Our second priority
is to abandon the doctrine of pre-emption. It did not work in Iraq because there
was nothing to pre-empt. The doctrine of pre-emption did not work in Iraq
because there was nothing to pre-empt. It was a failure of intelligence and
government decision making. If this government are so competent on national
security, why do we have a major inquiry under way into the failings of pre-war
intelligence for Iraq? If they are so competent, why do we have this major
inquiry under way proving the mistakes that were made in intelligence and
government decision making prior to the commitment?
Our third strategy on
the Labor side is to build up Australia's self-reliance. We support the American
alliance absolutely. We founded it under John Curtin during World War II, and
Labor is proud of its founding work and long-term support for the American
alliance. But we also believe in self-reliance for Australia within the terms of
that alliance. We want to be an equal partner with the United States, not be a
deputy sheriff. You will never hear me describing Australia as a deputy sheriff.
I am too proud of this country and too proud of what Labor governments have
achieved in the past to undersell and underestimate the contribution we can
make—always, Australia's self-reliance and an equal partnership with the
United States, and never to neglect the home front. Always the defence of
Australia first and foremost, not expeditionary forces—always the defence of
Australia in terms of strategic planning for our national defence.
Our fourth strategy
is to establish a department of homeland security—an integrated coordinated
model; a one-stop shop where the states and territories can interact with not a
dozen federal agencies but one federal government department to get it
right—along the lines of the United States model. This is particularly vital
for addressing threats to our transport system. We need the strongest possible
federal, state and territory cooperation to make this country safe and sound for
the future. We urgently need a department of homeland security.
Our fifth strategy is
to upgrade our airport and port security. I visited regional airports in
Australia with 70,000 to 80,000 passenger movements per annum and no screening
devices for passengers or luggage. We see it at Burnie and other parts of
Tasmania and in the electorate of Braddon—no screening devices. Tens of
thousands of passengers going through and there are no screening devices for the
passengers or their luggage. We have to build up our regional airport security.
So too we have to
build up our port security. What has been the government's response? Two and
half years after September 11, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services,
Mr Anderson, announced a security review on the weekend. That is all this
government is good for—reviewing things 2½ years after the event. Two and a
half years after the alert was sounded, the government can produce nothing more
substantial than a review. This alarming statistic remains with us today: almost
a third of the crew aboard visiting foreign cargo ships entering Australia do so
without facing passport checks. So a third of the foreign crews on these boats
visiting Australia do not have to face passport checks. We need more than a
review; we need action. We need government action to build up our port security
as we also build up our regional airport security around Australia.