Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) (3:26 PM) —by leave—The House will recall that on 18 March this year it resolved to support the government's decision to commit Australian Defence Force personnel to the international coalition to disarm Iraq. The coalition undertook to enforce Iraq's compliance with its obligations under successive resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, with a view to restoring stability and security to that area of the Middle East.

I am pleased to formally report to the House that the coalition's major combat operations in Iraq have been successfully completed.

Australian military forces contributed to those operations with just cause, in an action properly based on international law, which resulted in the liberation of a sorely oppressed people.

Australia's defence forces acquitted themselves with great distinction and professionalism. They rightly won the admiration of not only the Australian people but also Australia's allies in that military operation.

I know that all Australians will join me in expressing our immense gratitude that to date no Australian casualties have been sustained.

On that point, I have been told by many senior members of the Australian Defence Force that the absence of casualties was due, in no small measure, to the predeployment of our forces some weeks before the military operation began.

This pre-positioning added weight to the attempt to pressure Saddam Hussein into compliance and, more importantly and most importantly, it gave to our people the opportunity to acclimatise, thus enhancing not only their performance but also their physical safety and security in the event of conflict taking place. I again take the opportunity of reaffirming the correctness of the government's assessment in predeploying our forces, and I record the bitter opposition of the Australian Labor Party when that decision was taken.

Not only was the military operation completed quickly and successfully but it is also worth recording that all of the doomsday predictions, particularly the many that came from those who sit opposite, were not realised. The oilwells were not set on fire; there were not millions of refugees; the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were not breached to bring on catastrophic flooding; and there was no long, drawn out, bloody, Stalingrad style street-to-street fighting in Baghdad. For all of this we must be immensely grateful, but it is a reminder of the hysteria and the doomsday predictions that often accompany operations of this kind. And, just as many of the predictions about a Western Front style holocaust that were made in 1991 when the land war commenced were proved wrong, so the predictions on this occasion have been proved wrong.

The decisive victory of the American led coalition reflects enormous credit on the strength and the determination of the leadership of President Bush. Again I remind the House of the way in which his role was vilified and traduced by many of those who sit opposite and of the way in which speaker after speaker from the Australian Labor Party impugned his integrity, assaulted his judgment and called into question his ability to lead the United States in this very difficult conflict. History has proved them wrong. The performance of the President has illustrated how infantile their protests were, and the leadership that he has given on this occasion, I believe, will bring about a permanent change in attitudes in the Middle East.

President Bush and his administration—and this, perhaps, is the most important legacy to come from the operation in Iraq—are determined to do all they can to advance the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The President made this very clear to me during our recent discussions in the United States.

Now that the major combat phase is over, efforts in Iraq must properly turn to humanitarian considerations, and we have therefore begun to bring our defence personnel home.

This month, we will welcome home the HMAS Anzac and the HMAS Darwin. Both of them will arrive in Perth, at Stirling, on Saturday. The airmen, airwomen and support crews deployed with the FA18 Hornet aircraft will arrive at Tindal tomorrow. The majority of the Special Air Service units will be welcomed home in the appropriate circumstances for the SAS on Sunday. Later, we will welcome home the commando and Incident Response Regiment elements, the CH47 helicopter detachment and the Navy clearance diver team which did such remarkable work in the early days of the military operation.

Some military forces are still required to restore peace and security and to assist in the rehabilitation of the Iraqi nation.

But our military deployment will be limited, given current commitments in our own region. Many other nations have indicated a willingness to provide peacekeeping assistance in Iraq. The government has made clear all along that Australia would not be in a position to provide a peacekeeping force after the conflict. Our coalition partners fully understood that and consistently accepted the Australian decision throughout all of our discussions.

However, the following Australian Defence Force capabilities will either remain in or be deployed to Iraq: an Australian National Headquarters element; the HMAS Sydney; the HMAS Kanimbla and a naval task group command element; an Army commando element, for a brief period; two P3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and support; two C130 Hercules transport aircraft and support; an air traffic control element to provide air operations at Baghdad International Airport; a security group for the new Australian representational mission in Baghdad; and civilian and military experts working on locating and eliminating WMD in Iraq.

Our commitment for this phase of the operation is currently in the order of 1,200 personnel. For Australia, and the families of those involved, this remains, still, a very significant deployment.

It is our intention to ensure that the period of coalition control is kept to a minimum and that the responsibility for governing Iraq is taken up by an interim Iraqi authority as soon as practicable. This will be the first step on the pathway to representative government.

It is worth briefly recalling the history of events that led to our decision to participate in the coalition's operations in Iraq.

The cease-fire of 1991, which concluded the first Gulf War, prohibited Iraq from maintaining any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons capability.

For 12 years the United Nations sought to cajole and coerce Iraq into compliance. Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, even in the face of a substantial military threat, demonstrated that the community of nations had come to a critical point in this long running conflict. If Saddam Hussein were to be disarmed, we had to be prepared to resort to force.

I remind the House, and through it the people of Australia, that the Security Council was unanimous, through resolution 1441, in its view that Saddam Hussein had continued his weapons of mass destruction programs and that Iraq was therefore in material breach of its obligations under a long series of Security Council resolutions.

There has always been a fear that the more nations that possess these weapons, the more likely they will eventually be used. This fear is compounded when they are in the hands of regimes that show a total disregard for common humanity and the rule of law, aggressive and belligerent regimes like that overseen in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

But the greatest fear has always been that these weapons one day will find their way into the hands of terrorists. The events of 11 September 2001 and the atrocity in Bali, which claimed 88 Australian lives, have clearly demonstrated that international terrorists have no regard for human life.

Through its actions in Iraq the coalition has sent a clear signal to other rogue states and terrorist groups alike that the world is prepared, where necessary, to take a stand. I say on behalf of this government and, I believe, now a majority of the Australian people that we do not regret for a moment the stand we took alongside the United States and the United Kingdom. It was right, it was lawful and it was in the long-term national interests of Australia.

This government and, I believe, all Australians are enormously proud of the magnificent job done by the Australian military forces in Iraq. They have rightly earned the praise of their coalition partners.

Our forces performed superbly in accordance with their very fine reputation for professionalism, skill and courage. I want, on behalf of the nation, to record our deepest admiration, our respect and our gratitude to all of them. Most of all, I hope that the situation in Iraq can be stabilised relatively quickly and that all our forces will be home safely and soon with their families. I am confident that these sentiments are shared by all Australians. In a sentence, they have done their nation proud.

I know that the desire to see them home is felt most keenly by their families, and I am very grateful that over recent weeks I and other members of this House have had the opportunity of seeing their families.

There is, as we all know, a very special bond between our nation and the armed forces of our nation which serve our interests. When our forces are deployed to combat, we feel that bond all the more keenly. At the heart of that bond is the recognition that military service peculiarly carries a commitment to sacrifice.

When I visited Qatar last week to meet members of the Australian Defence Force it was an opportunity for me to directly convey the admiration in which they are held by the Australian nation. On that note, we will all have an opportunity to welcome them home in different ways over the days and weeks ahead. In particular, all the men and women involved in both the war in Iraq and the broader international coalition against terrorism will be invited to participate in two special parades through the streets of Sydney and Perth. Details of those will be announced later. I encourage all who are able to gather and join in expressing our thanks for a successful operation and our unqualified pleasure at their safe homecoming.

When I was in Qatar I had the pleasure of meeting Brigadier Maurie McNarn, Commander of the Australian National Headquarters in the Middle East. I would like to congratulate Brigadier McNarn, on behalf of all Australians, for commanding our forces so successfully. While I know that his family will appreciate these sentiments, I also know that their attention will be overwhelmingly focused on his homecoming, now just a few short days away. Whilst in Qatar I had the opportunity of meeting so many of our forces and being reminded of the distinctive Australian character that Australian defence personnel always bring to an operation. One marvellous illustration I was given was a T-shirt embossed with the description, `Australian Mountaineering Club'. The highest point in Qatar is 100 metres.

The military campaign in Iraq was astonishingly speedy and effective. It has been a remarkable campaign and it reflects very great tribute on American military leadership. There was no shortage of occupants of armchairs ridiculing the American Defense Secretary because the war was not over within two or three days and calling into question the military tactics that were being employed. But it was a very successful operation and, most importantly, every attempt was made by the coalition forces to ensure that civilian casualties were kept to an absolute minimum. Our quarrel was not with the Iraqi people but with the regime of Saddam Hussein. When that regime fell, we did not note or accept its fall; we welcomed it and we joined with the Iraqi people in rejoicing in the fall of that regime.

We did not rely only on technology and on the use of precision guided weapons but also relied on strict targeting policies—policies which Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of. It is a cruel irony that the Iraqi leadership had far less regard for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people than the coalition forces. How else can you explain the placement of artillery, military communications systems, munitions stores and the like in urban areas, in schools, in kindergartens and in hospitals? That occurred all over Iraq.

It is a testament not only to our fighting men and women but also to our defence hierarchy that, when missions were aborted out of concern for the impact on civilians, such decisions were praised and not admonished.

In this context, the government also wants to pay tribute to the contributions of the American, British and other coalition forces. They have behaved and conducted themselves with very great honour and distinction. The coalition has, I believe, set new standards of integrity and ethical behaviour in military conflict. This new attitude reflects the reality that the modern man or woman in the military is as much a conciliator and peacemaker as he or she is a war fighter.

The speed and effectiveness of the coalition campaign also reflects the lack of organised military operations by the Iraqi forces against the coalition. Perhaps we should not have been surprised at this. It was probably the first signal of the real feelings of the Iraqi people: they were not willing to sacrifice their lives to protect a brutal despot.

Saddam Hussein was not, and never was, Iraq. Once they could be sure that his regime was crumbling and that they could be guaranteed allied sustenance and support, we saw in the streets of Baghdad, Basra and hundreds of other towns all over Iraq expressions of joy—the sheer joy of freedom.

Of course, for some that joy is tempered by sadness. Tragically, despite all the efforts of the coalition, there have been civilian casualties. The death of innocent people—especially children—should always shock and sadden us lest we lose our basic humanity. But when we consider the civilian death and suffering in Iraq now, and we are touched by it and grieve for it, we must not forget the deaths and suffering of millions of Iraqis over the past 25 years. Nor should we forget the deaths, the torture and injury and the devastation inflicted by Saddam Hussein's regime on neighbouring Arab countries.

Saddam Hussein and his regime stand accused of the most serious crimes against humanity. Since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979, torture and summary executions have been a routine mechanism of state control.

You would have all read the reports of the most diabolical and cruel punishments. The coalition forces have only just begun the task of collecting specific and hard evidence of these terrible violations of human rights. They have already uncovered considerable circumstantial evidence but the task of gathering proof will be time-consuming, difficult, frustrating and harrowing—especially for the families of the victims.

Despite its dark past, Iraq now has a promising future. But it is a period now of enormous challenge.

Security is the most immediate priority. The people of Iraq cannot consider their future until their day-to-day security is assured. They must be able to go to work, to go to school, to meet and to discuss issues freely.

The coalition must also work to provide basic humanitarian support for the Iraqis. Without secure food supplies, clean drinking water, functioning sewerage systems, reliable electricity, transport and fuel, there will be little opportunity for the Iraqi people to turn their attention to their political infrastructure.

But in this regard it is critical that the world not believe that the current dilapidated state of Iraq's infrastructure is entirely due to military conflict. Even before the conflict started, Iraq's infrastructure was severely degraded. The telecommunications network required urgent attention. Oil and gas infrastructure had deteriorated greatly. Electricity generation was less than half its nominal capacity, and that was before the military operation started. And, partly because of the poor state of the distribution system, power cuts throughout Iraq were common. Water supplies were increasingly vulnerable to contamination by raw sewage, and access to safe drinking water was a major concern.

These deficiencies stem from longstanding neglect and diversion of resources to weapons programs by the former Iraqi regime. It is salutary to be reminded that more Iraqi lives have been lost to dirty drinking water than to the recent conflict.

Australia takes its rehabilitation responsibilities very seriously. Our contribution—as in the conflict phase—will focus our limited resources in niche areas where we have expertise and where a concentrated effort can make a real difference. We have already committed some $100 million in aid—well in advance of many other countries that have been loud in their criticism by implication of Australia's actions. We have provided highly skilled personnel to contribute to key humanitarian planning and reconstruction efforts.

We are very keen to play a strong role in rehabilitating Iraqi agriculture, and I am pleased to note that the respected agricultural figure Mr Trevor Flugge is sharing with an American counterpart the joint control of the department concerned with the revival and recovery of Iraqi agriculture. This is an area where our experience of dryland farming, salination and irrigation may prove very useful to the Iraqi people. Another focus of our humanitarian efforts will be in the water and sanitation sector.

In addition to meeting these obligations, the coalition is working hard to rid Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction. The hunt for these weapons will not be easy. We know that in order to protect them from inspectors, the Iraqi regime broke them up and hid them in their disaggregated condition in different parts of the country.

But the coalition are starting to uncover the evidence. They have found what appear to be mobile biological weapons production facilities, just like those described by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council in February, when his efforts were derided by the French foreign minister and others.

It is going to take considerable time and resources to complete the investigation and destruction of the regime's weapons of mass destruction. But at least we will no longer be obstructed, as we have been in the past, by a hostile regime.

Australia has joined the United States and Great Britain as partners in the coalition transitional authority in Iraq. The aim of the coalition is to create the circumstances in which the Iraqis will have the opportunity to establish a representative government of their choosing and nobody else's. We are not in the business of imposing a particular model of democracy on the Iraqi people.

The transitional phase will be immensely challenging. Restoring political stability and promoting democracy in Iraq are daunting tasks. Iraq has no history of representative democracy and is marked by significant religious and ethnic divides. It will also take time and sustained effort to overcome the corrosive effects of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.

But on the plus side Iraq is a relatively modern and sophisticated country with very good economic prospects, not just because of its oil resources but because its people are strong and well-skilled and have a strong entrepreneurial ethos.

While it is not for the coalition to dictate the form of Iraq's new government, we will seek to establish a representative process so that Iraqis can, for the first time, choose their leaders via a process that respects democratic principles and respects Iraq's religious and ethnic mix. As a committed supporter of the Australian democratic system, it should be no surprise that I have speculated that a federal model may be appropriate. But again it is up to the Iraqi people to determine the best way to preserve Iraq's territorial integrity and enhance the stability of the immediate region.

The government considers that the United Nations could play a significant, practical role in support of the transitional process.

The United Nations is best placed to help mobilise and coordinate aid efforts, help transfer power to the Iraqis, and consolidate international acceptance of the new regime. But the Security Council will need to act much more constructively than it has to date if the United Nations is to have any meaningful role in rehabilitating Iraq. That was a view that I conveyed on behalf of the government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations when I saw him in New York last week.

My talks last week with President Bush underlined the deepening and strengthening relationship between our two nations. The relationship between Australia and the United States has never been stronger. This relationship is not forced or contrived. We are allies because we are friends—very close friends. And that friendship is based above everything else on a commonality of views. We share a view of the world that values freedom and individual liberty.

Both our nations recognise the threat posed to our communities by international terrorists. We understand the dangers of leaving the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction unchecked. Our longstanding security alliance with the United States provides a solid and reliable basis for us to cooperate on addressing these issues.

The shared intelligence and the access to cutting edge defence and security technologies that the alliance facilitates are vital to ensuring Australia's security and will only become more important in the future. As I have said before, the importance of the relationship with the United States will grow rather than diminish with the passage of time.

But neither the United States or Australia seeks to promote this relationship at the expense of another. The government will continue to develop and enhance relationships whenever and wherever we can see an advantage for Australia. Our national interest is always best served by a network of alliances, friendships and relationships.

I also wish to place on record my great respect for the strength of leadership displayed by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He is a strong Labour leader in the best traditions of that term. Australia's relationship with the United Kingdom is not a relic of history. It is rich, contemporary and diverse. It extends across so many generations in so many areas and has, of course, been reinforced by recent experience.

Without the determination demonstrated by President Bush and his administration and without the dogged resolve in the face of considerable domestic difficulty—not least within his own party—of Mr Blair, Saddam Hussein's intransigence would never have been addressed.

The strengthening of these longstanding and important ties with America and Britain does not mean for a moment that Australia has diminished other important relationships. Indeed, we have been very careful to ensure that our region understands our involvement in Iraq.

Earlier this year, as the House would be aware, I visited Indonesia to consult President Megawati on a number of matters, including Australia's attitude to the challenge of Iraq. Although Indonesia has taken a very different position on Iraq, the president made plain—then by her words and subsequently by the action of her government—that Indonesia did not want this issue to affect our close bilateral relationship.

On the occasion of my visit, she specifically assured me that Indonesia would not view a military operation to oust Saddam Hussein as being in any way an attack on Islam.

Importantly, against the background of a mythology that in some way Australia was taking a stance on Iraq that was out of step with nations in our region, let me remind you that many close friends and partners of Australia in the region—particularly Japan, Korea and Singapore—were strong supporters of the coalition action. Therefore, it has always been wrong to characterise our participation in Iraq as somehow being out of step with our neighbours in the region.

Mr Speaker, I return to the question of Israel and the Palestinians. As I have indicated, I drew very great encouragement from President Bush's clearly stated determination, both in public and in private, to work as hard as possible to achieve a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Australia, as the House knows, has been a staunch friend and ally of Israel for more than 50 years. And there is no-one in this House who has a greater admiration for the stoic persistence, behaviour and resistance of the Israeli people over that 50-year period.

But the government also believes very strongly in the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. We believe in an independent Palestinian state, and I am pleased to report that there is a growing belief within many sections of the Jewish community in Australia that the emergence of an independent Palestinian state is also integral to a lasting settlement in the Middle East.

During the military operations, the Prime Minister of Israel telephoned me to express his gratitude for Australia's contribution to the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein, particularly having regard to the operations of some of our forces. I took the opportunity during that discussion, whilst repeating the enduring friendship of the Australian people towards Israel, of reiterating our commitment to working closely with other nations to bring about a lasting settlement. We have seen progress made. We now have a Prime Minister of the Palestinian Council. We have seen Secretary of State Colin Powell visit the area. There is the prospect of a meeting between the Palestinian Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel. All of these things should be a source of enormous comfort and enormous encouragement. And may I say that nobody could have put it better than the eminent British writer William Shawcross when, in his Harkness lecture in March this year, he said, in predicting some of the outcomes of a successful military operation in Iraq, that the road to a Middle East peace settlement could well lie through Baghdad. I believe that one of the lasting legacies of the successful military operation could be this momentum for a renewed attempt to bring about an end to this horrible conflict that has devoured so much, claimed so many lives and brought such sadness and so many sick hearts to people of goodwill both in Israel and amongst the Palestinians.

I know how committed both the British Prime Minister and the American President are to the cause of a peace settlement, and I am sure that this is something that can unite all members of this House. We admire and support the people of Israel, but we also recognise that in the long run there must be dignity, respect and independence for the people of former Palestine—for the Palestinians. If that can be achieved then it will be one of the great and enduring legacies of the American led action.

I have told both President Bush and the British Prime Minister that we will do everything we can to assist to achieve a successful outcome. As a nation we are held in high regard in those parts of the world, and there is a contribution that we can make. It will not be easy, but one thing should be clearly understood and give hope: that there is renewed determination amongst so many others. If ever there was a moment for Israel and the Palestinians to seize, it is this moment, and we hope that they will grab hold of the opportunity.

In concluding, can I again express on behalf of the House our sense of gratitude, our sense of relief and our sense of pleasure that our forces have escaped any casualties. The people that we think of most when we commit this nation to military conflict are, of course, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. They fought magnificently; they behaved magnificently. They were not only war fighters; they were great conciliators and they were great peacemakers.

Can I finally express my gratitude to all of my colleagues. This was a difficult issue and, in looking at all of you and addressing you, can I say that I know some of you at various stages had worries and reservations—that is perfectly natural; it was very difficult. So did a lot of our fellow Australians; I understood that. What I want to say to all of you is that the trust you reposed in me, the trust you reposed in the decision of the government, the way in which you all loyally supported that decision and, if I may borrow a word from the other discipline, the solidarity that you displayed during those times, was to me a source of great inspiration and great encouragement. Can I also say that I think it impressed the Australian people, because in the end, even if the Australian people may have reservations about a particular decision and may worry about it, if those who have taken that decision and those who have invested what authority they have in that decision show a sense of purpose, a sense of commitment, a sense of unity and a sense of mutual loyalty, then the Australian people will trust their judgment. I, therefore, to all of my colleagues record my gratitude. It was very important to me, and it was very important to the other members of the National Security Committee. Finally, can I also especially thank Alexander Downer, the foreign minister, and Senator Robert Hill, the defence minister, who day by day were my regular interlocutors on this matter and discharged their obligations.

Australia can be proud of what it did. We did the right thing; we did the lawful thing. We brought freedom and liberty to an oppressed people, and that is something about which we should always be, I think, properly and eternally proud.

Mr Speaker, I will not be able to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's reply because I am going to Government House to call on the Administrator designate, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not construe that as being in any way offensive to him. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.05 p.m.)—by leave—I move:

Question agreed to.