(Inaudible).

No not at all. I think that overwhelmingly in Iraq the coalition forces have operated within the rule of law and have operated humanely. There are, as we know, incidents that I think the words I used were appalling. But the best evidence that I have is that they are isolated. The most often referred to are the prison abuses that were revealed through the New Yorker. But in that instance, the United States identified the problem as a result of information provided within not from without. Back in January when provided with that information, investigation was immediately instituted. The fact that it was being instituted was made public. Obviously highly reputable, competent investigators were brought in. Their reports are now in and actions in terms of disciplinary actions and punishment is being meted out. So when, as I said, and you might have missed it, one of the contrasts is that even within our system there will always be those, there will always be some that abuse the rules. The distinction is when the rules are abused under our system, consistent with the rule of law, those who break the rules are punished. So no I think it would be grossly unfair to generalise and in some way label the vast majority of the armed forces of the some 32 countries that currently have forces supporting the Iraqi people in Iraq, with the abuses of a few.

Robert Ayson from the Australian National University. (Inaudible).

I think it would, because as you say the attacks that we’ve experienced to date have not utilised weapons of mass destruction I believe it would be a great mistake to assume that that would not occur in the future or in some way to treat it as a less likely alternative. It’s clear from the doctrine of the extremist groups that they regard the use of these weapons of mass destruction as legitimate. As I said and from a number of his statements, Osama bin Laden actually regards it as a duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We know from documents that were obtained within Afghanistan that that goal of chemical and biological weapons was one that was being pursued. In some other instances around the world we have evidence of other associated groups moving towards these weapons. The arrests in Britain for example, it was late last year. I couldn’t think of a greater error that we might make than to assume that organisations who clearly regard mass destruction, the mass killing of people as a legitimate target towards a political goal would not use the most dangerous of all weapons if they could put their hands on them. And that’s why we regard it as so important to work to contain proliferation and to avoid the transfer of weapons, the horizontal proliferation, through every means that is possible. The tradition diplomatic means that I referred to and means that I think are more akin to the particular challenges we face today such as the development of the Proliferation Security Initiative. And it’s been interesting to see the extent to which that initiative has been taken up around the world. When it commenced there were clearly expressions of concern. Was this a legitimate response, was it measured and so on. And now as I said there are 80 countries invited to the next major conference which I think is indicative of the way the world sees this concern, the real (inaudible) associated with this concern and the fact that there is a wide spread determination to deal with it effectively.

Minister, you mentioned the cooperation between the Special Forces (inaudible).

Cooperation has occurred with Special Forces in such places as the Philippines and Thailand and is continuing in form of exercises. In relation to Indonesia it is not as well advanced for reasons that are known to all. But we have sought to reengage Kopassus because we regard it as the principle counter terrorism capability within Indonesia. There are other capabilities that are developing, particularly within the police and we’re supporting that as well. But if a very serious incident, such as hijacking, it may well be more likely then not Kopassus that is brought in. And that incident may well involve Australians. And to be able to understand and know the doctrine and the capabilities of Kopassus and if necessary even to work with them in such an incident that affected Australians, we believe is in Australia’s national interest. Now in terms of the history of Kopassus, there are difficulties in that regard and we have said that we cannot work with those who have committed crimes in the past. This has not made it easy to develop that relationship but we’re trying to achieve a win-win situation here. The first that we can work with this organisation where it’s necessary to protect Australian lives, but secondly not to send a message that might be confused in relation to basic adherence to basic human values. We haven’t proceeded far yet other then through exchanges of senior personnel, meetings between leaders, commanders of the organisations and we are continuing to work down that path and to identify those that we can work with and to gain the confidence of Indonesia in respecting the restrictions that we need to impose. So it’s a work in progress. Not withstanding the difficulties and the criticism by some, we continue – we intend to continue to work down that path.

(Inaudible).

I suppose any hospital system would obviously be stretched by, even overwhelmed by a catastrophic number of casualties as you put it. Certainly we have exercised the capability of the Australian health system to cope with attacks and we have encouraged and worked to build a better understanding between the agencies which include at the state level the health capabilities. We have a better understanding of what domestic health assets there are in the event of such an attack. And as I understand it to some extent that was looked at again in the preparations for exercise Mercury. So we think that, it depends on your definition of catastrophic, but we think that we are better resourced than most in terms of our health capabilities to meet that challenge and as I think you know we’re also working with other regional countries to – that may not be as well equipped or as well able to deal with such attacks, helping them to develop the capabilities to manage the consequences of such a disaster. That’s not only in their interests, which they appreciate, but in the worst of circumstances, might turn out to be in our interests as well.

(Inaudible).

We are as I said significantly increasing the size of our Special Forces which has required an increase in recruitment and as you know we, in terms of Special Forces, we are using some somewhat novel means in that we’re recruiting direct. This has been something of an experiment but so far the results are very positive. It’s not necessarily means that somebody’s coming with no military background, for example we find people who did have a form of military background, in some instances are returning from the private sector. Perhaps found life on the outside not quite as exciting as what they had anticipated. But so far that new recruiting program is working extraordinarily well. We are losing some, it is true, to private security contractors. That’s a field that seems to be rapidly growing in this insecure world. But I looked at the numbers the other day and I don’t regard the loss levels as significant. So we’re on a growth path. We’re determined to grow but at the same time maintain the extraordinarily high standards that the Australian forces are proud of and I think we can achieve both the goals of growth and maintaining those standards.

Any other questions. Thank you down the back.

(Inaudible).

Well in Iraq what we are now seeking to do is to assist in the stabilisation of the country and the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty. Sovereignty under which the Iraqi people will have a freedom that many would never have dreamt of. There are those who are determined to defeat that objective including clearly those who are prepared to use terrorist means and we’ve seen the very significant attacks on the new Iraqi leadership through suicide bombers of recent times as an illustration of that. To, as I said in my address, to ensure that they don’t succeed is very important. Important for a number of reasons. Firstly because a free Iraq and the benefits that can flow from that to the Iraqi people within that region can be a real demonstration and in some ways a material demonstration of the values that we are seeking to promote. But also of course if they deceive – if they succeed through extremist means to defeat the opportunity of the Iraqi people establishing their government in free circumstances, they will claim a huge victory for tactics of that type. And as we’ve seen through the history of these organisations, without any hesitation at all be willing to continue and I fear expand the use of those tactics elsewhere in the world. These extremists are in – a majority it’s fair to say are from within Iraq and they are being assisted and supported by others from without. The victory over that extremism at the moment I regard as critically important in terms of winning the wider war against terrorism.

(Inaudible).

Well I think the biggest challenge is within Islam itself. The biggest challenge is for the vast majority of Muslim people who are non violent and adhere to interpretations of the Koran that don’t demand that they go on jihad to win over the minority that see it the other way. And they – that mass of moderate Muslims are in many ways at least as threatened, if not more threatened than the believers in other faiths. And I made that point in quoting the extremist views put on the internet last month and thus we see these attacks in Islamic countries as well as non-Islamic countries. So I think the challenge is to work with moderate Islam wherever it is in support of them – there is a mutual benefit to work with them to succeed in this war against extremists because, as the extremists have said, really we’re all equal in terms of being threatened. And we are seeking to do that because it is obvious with countries and with communities that do adhere to non-violent values and it is also as you are hinting I think, a very important part of winning the ultimate war against terrorism. Winning the war against terrorism not only requires a military victory but also requires a victory of hearts and minds.

Any other questions.

Back to Estimates.

Yes, time for one then we’ll wind it up thanks very much.

(Inaudible).

Acoustics should be fantastic in this particular hall but I’ve missed it I’m sorry.

(Inaudible) ... shouldn’t there also be a hand over of command to coalition forces in Iraq?

Well I think there’s principle and there is reality. The principle is that we are looking for the interim government to be genuinely sovereign but the reality is that it is not going to be capable to provide the security that is necessary for the further process of transition within Iraq. Processes which will involve the work up to the elections to be held in January, the development and passage of the new constitution and so forth. And that’s why within the transitional law, the Iraqis have agreed themselves that they need to work with the international community with the multilateral force if they are to be able to continue the process towards true independence in fact as well as in law. And that’s why as I read it the United Nations in its last resolution also urges the international community to stay with this challenge and to provide military forces in support of the Iraqi people. The transitional law talks about a unified command as I – a unified force as I recall. The exact detail of the command is obviously something that is still to be determined. But it is – whilst I met the new Iraqi Defence Minister and he’s a most impressive man, and whilst I’ve met his equivalent of our CDF, both had only just taken office. And whether they would feel that they would be able to command a multi-national force of the size and complexity of what is there at the moment, I very much doubt. So I don’t think it’s in our interest to build unfair obstacles to this process of transition. I think the process of transition is going to be difficult enough as it is. I think the important thing is to work constructively with the interim government towards the goals that they aspire to and that we share for them. But to, if we can help them achieve that in providing for security and stability then we will be making a major contribution.

Thank you very much for those questions and thank you also Minister for taking what I think was nearly 25 minutes of questions.