Ms MACKLIN (4:00 PM) —The Deputy Prime Minister talks about leaving Iraq, which is of course exactly what this government did in Afghanistan. I do not know why it was all right in Afghanistan but it is not all right to apply exactly the same policy in Iraq. The motion that we are debating today and, most importantly, the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition ask the parliament to express its continued support for and confidence in the troops who are still in Iraq—and of course we all do exactly that.

We very much appreciate the work that each and every person is contributing. We do understand, as best we can from so far away, the risks that they take, and we certainly give thanks that there have been no Australian casualties in Iraq. Our troops in Iraq know that they have our full support. They do not need this government playing politics with this issue. They know that both sides of parliament and all the people of Australia both support their work and are very proud of what they do. The government sent them to do a job, and we know they are doing it to the very best of their ability.

But where the government and the opposition disagree is on when we decide that the job is done. What we have from the Prime Minister today is a very clear understanding that this government wants this to be left open ended. The Prime Minister wants it to be left completely open ended. By contrast, Labor argues that Australia needs a clear exit strategy from our military involvement in Iraq. A clear exit strategy—a very clear timetable for withdrawal—is, in our view, the very wisest approach.

The Australian parliament should not support an open-ended commitment to troops in Iraq, and that is why we will not be supporting the second part of this motion. The second part of the motion actually contradicts what the government has been saying and doing. It exposes the continuing inconsistency of this government on the involvement of troops in Iraq. The Prime Minister should not be moving a motion that locks our troops into staying in Iraq indefinitely. This motion means that our troops must stay in Iraq regardless of the threats that might be posed in the future to Australia's security. I want to quote something the Prime Minister said back in October 2002. He said:

Yet that is exactly what the second part of this motion effectively does. The Prime Minister had it right in October 2002, but of course he has done a complete flip—a complete reverse of that position—and he is now saying that our troops must stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Back in February 2003 the Prime Minister promised that Australia's military commitment in Iraq would be of—and we have heard quite a bit of this repeated over and over from that side of the House—`a quite short, specific duration'. But is that what this motion that we are debating today says? No, of course it does not say that. It says it will be of a long, unspecified duration. Of course we all know that the Prime Minister is doing this because he needs a political distraction—and, unfortunately, he is prepared to use our troops as pretty cheap pawns in his political games. That is really what this is all about.

By contrast, what you have from the Australian Labor Party is a very responsible approach: to set a very clear exit strategy from our military involvement in Iraq—and the Leader of the Opposition has set that out. Surprisingly, this is actually the same strategy that this government used in relation to the deployment of our troops to Afghanistan. Australia deployed SAS troops in the war against terror in Afghanistan, and the Prime Minister withdrew those troops after the new government in Afghanistan was put in place. Does anyone here think that everything has been resolved and that peace has returned completely in Afghanistan and that there is no need for any further help in Afghanistan when it comes to reconstruction? No-one would suggest that. No-one would suggest that the reconstruction of Afghanistan is completed, but our troops came home when the new government was put in place.

That is exactly what the Labor Party is arguing in relation to Iraq. The Prime Minister cannot accuse Labor's exit strategy as representing `cutting and running' unless he is prepared to admit that that is exactly what the government did in Afghanistan. After the new government is in place in Iraq—and we expect that to be some time around the middle of the year—Australia's efforts must be to continue to provide humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction assistance to the Iraqi people. That is what we are committed to do. It is a policy that recognises that rebuilding a country is best undertaken by civilians. That is who should be helping after the end of the war.

In fact, the government used to support this position. No less than Senator Hill said that the `rebuilding of Iraq will be essentially a civilian task'—a civilian task, according to the Minister for Defence—and will be predominantly through a `contribution provided by the private sector'. That is the view of the current defence minister. Of course that is not politically expedient anymore, so that is not the view of this government. But Labor fully support that view and that is why we believe we can set a goal of having our troops home by Christmas.

When the Prime Minister says that no arbitrary time should be set for withdrawal from Iraq, he is effectively committing our troops indefinitely-. Back in May 2003 the Prime Minister said that our commitment should be for months, not years. It has already been a year, and through this motion the Prime Minister wants it to go on and on—with no time line, no idea whatsoever when it might come to a close. Labor's position, by contrast, is that withdrawal of our troops from Iraq has to be clear. We have always said that this should take place as soon as practicable once our responsibilities as an occupying power in Iraq have been discharged. The handover of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an interim Iraqi government in the middle of the year is of course a critical milestone in this respect. Labor recognise that some Australian military personnel in Iraq are protecting Australian officials working in our representative office in Baghdad. While it is our intention to withdraw our troops, we will consult the Chief of the Defence Force and Foreign Affairs and Trade diplomatic security experts on the likely security needs of these officers at the appropriate time.

This debate on Australian troop commitments occurs at the same time that the war on terror continues. This debate about our commitment in Iraq has to be able to be undertaken in a much more sensible way than that demonstrated by certain members opposite—especially the member for Parramatta most recently, when he descended into outrageous accusations about Labor's so-called support of al-Qaeda because of our commitment to withdraw the troops from Iraq. It is time we have a sensible debate on this issue so we are able to hold different points of view about the war in Iraq without members of the government descending into making these ridiculous accusations and questioning our commitment to fighting the war against terror.

This government knows full well that the Labor Party is a very strong supporter of the efforts of not only the government but other governments in the war against terror. We know how critical this is in our region. But Labor's policy is to make sure that our priorities are all about Australia's security—the ongoing war against terror, maintaining the security and stability of our immediate region and, most importantly, the protection of Australians both at home and overseas. We will make the decision to withdraw and deploy Australian defence forces overseas on the basis of these priorities—not according to politically motivated motions that lock our troops into staying in Iraq indefinitely. (Time expired)