Mr CADMAN (2:10 PM) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on any further developments following the election in Iraq, particularly in enhancing security for the Iraqi people? Are there any alternative views?

Mr DOWNER (Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. I appreciate that he is one of the members who is very concerned about the safety and security of the Iraqi people and their passion for democracy. The counting from the elections that took place on 30 January is still proceeding and the Iraqi Electoral Commission said overnight that a recount would be needed in some 300 ballot boxes. As a result, that will push back the announcement of the final results by a few days. Nevertheless, I hardly need to remind the House that the fact that so many Iraqis—eight million to nine million—reportedly went out to vote on polling day despite threats of intimidation and violence was a remarkable demonstration of the support of the ordinary people of Iraq for freedom and for democracy.

I note in response to the second part of the member for Mitchell's question that the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, met with NATO Foreign Ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels during the course of last night—our time—after which she said that these were `the best discussions of Iraq that we have had as an alliance,' and `We know what the work is to be done ahead.' Can I say how much we welcome that sentiment. I found very much the same point of view when I was at NATO headquarters just a week ago. There is a real determination amongst the NATO partners, including countries like France and Germany, to try to make the new free and democratic Iraq work on behalf of the millions of people of Iraq who want that type of a future for themselves. There are very few people in Iraq who want to see that country return to tyranny.

We know that one of the principal tasks—not the only task—in Iraq is to train up the Iraqi security forces: the army, the police. There are about 120,000-130,000 people so far in the Iraqi security forces. The security forces are not big enough and they are not strong enough to be able to confront the insurgents at this stage. More needs to be done. Out of the NATO meeting—I think this will be reiterated at the NATO summit that President Bush will be at on 22 February—there is a unanimous commitment to support the training task in Iraq. In Australia, unfortunately, we were told by the Leader of the Opposition—when he first became the Leader of the Opposition this time around—that we needed to have a more complicated debate on Iraq. As I pointed out yesterday, sentences with 106 words in them are certainly complicated.

The point is that the Labor Party in a year has had 16 different positions on the issue of troops in Iraq. The current position is that they kind of half support the security detachment remaining, at least for a little while, but they are not quite sure and they do not want to listen to the advice from the Chief of the Defence Force or the Chief of Army—they are not important. Politics is more important than that, according to the Labor Party. But when it comes to the troops we have in Iraq, who are undertaking the training tasks, who are contributing to training the Iraqi people, the Leader of the Opposition—who claims to be the world's foremost expert on security issues—says that is not an issue. Actually, it is an issue, and we would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether the Labor Party, in its 16th position, moving to its 17th position, believes that we should be making a contribution to the training of the Iraqi security forces. He has been asked this question on Lateline and a number of other programs and he never answers it. Why? Because the Labor Party is deeply divided on the issue of Iraq. And we are proud of the role we played in helping the Iraqi people achieve democracy.