Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Hansard source

In this consideration in detail, one of the things that the opposition and the parliament are interested in is the current nature of Australia’s deployment in East Timor and the circumstances which gave rise to that deployment. Obviously, having visited East Timor myself, I know the Australian Defence Force are doing well on the ground and are dealing with a difficult and dangerous situation which presents itself. The task for which they were sent was to ensure that civil war did not erupt between the disintegrating elements of the East Timorese defence force and the East Timorese police force. On that score, their job so far has been well executed. Of course, when it comes to the law and order function within Dili itself and beyond, that more properly is a function which should be given to the police. One of the problems that the Australian Brigadier Mick Slater has encountered on the ground is not having those police resources at his disposal.

The debate, though, which legitimately arises from the nature of Australia’s continuing commitment—in budgetary terms as well—to East Timor is how we have ended up in a situation where this deployment has become necessary. There are a couple of questions I would therefore appreciate the minister providing us with some enlightenment on. When it comes to the question of the wind-back of Australia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping force in Timor from 2003 onwards, on what basis did the government in 2003, with the consideration of UN Security Council resolution 1473, begin a process of winding down Australia’s military commitment? Did the UN Secretary-General, in the consideration of that UN Security Council resolution, have a different view? Was a different view put by the government of East Timor at the time when that resolution was passed by the council?

See this speech in context