PM says taking part in terrorist activity is ‘against God’ and ‘against religion’, as George Brandis denies country is at war

Tony Abbott has said the objective of deploying Australian forces in Iraq is to help national and regional authorities maintain internal security and to “dislodge” Islamic State (Isis) militants.



The prime minister said the aim was to “work with the Iraqis, to work with Kurds to ensure that they are able to keep their people safe”, but he was unable to put a timeline on the commitment beyond saying it could last “many, many months”.

Abbott acknowledged that Australian air strikes in Iraq might kill Australian citizens who “took their chances” joining Isis.

The prime minister said one of the main reasons for the government committing to the fight against Isis was that “significant numbers” of Australians were involved with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria.

“These are ideologues of a new and hideous variety who don’t just do evil but they exalt in doing evil,” Abbott said.

“Now, if they are killed in conflict, they know the risks, they took their chances. They broke Australian law. They are doing something which is a very serious offence under Australian law and I say again to any Australian who might be thinking of travelling to the Middle East to join in terrorist activity: don’t. It is very dangerous. It is wrong. It is against God. It is against religion. It is against our common humanity … and it may well become much more dangerous because of the presence of Australian forces.”

The attorney general, George Brandis, rejected suggestions the deployment of Australian Super Hornets and special forces in the Middle East meant the nation was now at war. He said it was a “humanitarian mission with military elements”.

Brandis and Abbott played down claims that Australia’s military involvement in Iraq could increase the risk of the nation becoming a terrorist target.

The government announced the deployment on Sunday. The Australian Defence Force would also prepare a special operations task group of military advisers to assist Iraqi and other security forces fighting Isis. Abbott said the 600-strong force would comprise about 400 air personnel and 200 military personnel, including special forces.

Abbott said the force being sent to the Middle East would not begin operations until the government had made a full assessment of the risks, had a clear understanding of the rules of engagement and had received appropriate written invitations from the Iraqi government.

He indicated a final decision was likely after the UN security council meeting next week.

The US has signalled its willingness to extend its airstrike campaign against Isis into Syria. Abbott said his plans so far related only to Iraq, noting Australia was acting with the support of the Iraqi government whereas Syria was “effectively ungoverned space” and Australia did not recognise the legitimacy of the Assad regime.

Abbott said he was not aware of a report by Human Rights Watch that an Iraqi government airstrike hit a school housing displaced people near Tikrit in an area controlled by Isis. Human Rights Watch said the 1 September attack killed at least 31 civilians including 24 children.

“I’m not aware of the report and if it’s true it would be deeply and utterly regrettable,” Abbott said. “But we have to appreciate that there is a context here and in a context where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by the [Isis] movement, thousands of people have been deliberately killed, often in the most gruesome possible way: beheadings, crucifixions, mass shootings into pits. There’s a world of difference between deliberate killing and accidental killing and I think it’s important to maintain that distinction.”

Labor backed the government’s decision to offer Australian assistance to target Isis in Iraq. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said he believed Abbott had outlined a clear objective and he did not believe the decision was made lightly.

The leader of the Greens, Christine Milne, said Australia was “blindly following the US” and “rushing into a war” with no timeframe attached to the commitment and uncertainty over the definition of success.

“The way that [Isis] recruits new people to the cause is to be able to present it as a western imperial fight against Islam; and by going in after the US, that will enable those jihadists to ramp up the rhetoric and ramp up their recruitment,” Milne said.



Questioned about the objective in an interview with the Seven Network on Monday, Abbott said Australia would “work with the Iraqi government [and] the regional government in the Kurdish parts of Iraq”.



The prime minister has sought to differentiate the forthcoming engagement from the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led “coalition of the willing”, saying this involvement had the support of the Iraqi government.

“We aren’t going in there against the will of the elected government; we are going there at the invitation, with the welcome of the elected government,” the prime minister said.

“Our objective is to work with the Iraqis, to work with the Kurds to ensure that they are able to keep their people safe, they are able to maintain reasonable control over their territory and they are able to ensure that [Isis], in their territory, is no more effective.”

Abbott told the Nine Network: “If the [Isis] forces inside Iraq have been defeated, dislodged, if the Iraqi government is once more reasonably capable of maintaining control over its own territory, maintaining internal security, that will be certainly a success.”

The US president, Barack Obama, had assembled a broad coalition to target Isis because the world must take action rather than “wring our hands in the face of the grinning evil”, Abbott said.

The Australian special forces contingent would be deployed to the United Arab Emirates, and possibly into Iraq in the weeks ahead, as military advisers.

“Should they be further committed they’ll be working with the headquarters of Iraqi or Kurdish units to ensure that these units are fighting at their optimal capability,” Abbott told the ABC. “What we’re certainly not intending are independent combat operations by Australian forces.”

Brandis denied the deployment meant Australia was at war.

“I don’t think it’s correct to describe what we are speaking of as a war in the first place,” he told Sky News. “It is a mission; it is essentially a humanitarian mission with military elements.”

Brandis, asked about the contrast between the US decision to arm the Free Syrian Army and the prohibition on Australians fighting with that same group, said it had been illegal for Australians to fight in a foreign civil war for about 40 years.

Legislation to be presented to parliament next week would seek to “contemporise that law”, he told the ABC.

Brandis said it would be good for parents, relatives and friends to urge Australians who had set off for Middle East conflicts to return home before getting involved in fighting.

“Every case depends on its own facts … If somebody does engage in war fighting in Syria or northern Iraq they have committed a crime against Australian law. There may be cases in which youngsters have travelled overseas perhaps out of curiosity or with an interest but upon arriving shall we say in Turkey, through which a lot of these people are staged, get cold feet and decide they don’t want to pursue that objective. At that point it may be that they have not committed a crime against Australian law.”

The independent MP Andrew Wilkie said the government needed to be clear about the parameters of Australia’s involvement, the rules of engagement and how it was likely to unfold.



Wilkie said if special forces were to be on the ground potentially carrying out missions, “the government needs to be honest about it”.

Abbott told the ABC of a broader goal. “Over time, I would hope to see a world where the golden ethical rule – do to others as you would have them do to you – is better accepted,” he said.

“I would like to see, over time, an understanding by all people and cultures, and religions, that there should be separation of church and state, that there is a sense of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”