Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Charlton and the member for Cowan for (a) their concern and (b) asking the question. I cannot express enough my admiration to Bruce and his family for their significant contribution to our country. It is extraordinary. In terms of warlike or non-warlike, the definition of what is warlike or non-warlike occupied the mind of the then Keating government in 1992. It then spent a long time working with the Australian Defence Force in developing definitions for conditions of service for ADF personnel who would be deployed. There were essentially six categories that were defined and approved in 1993 by the then Keating government, three of them falling into warlike and three of them falling into non-warlike.

A warlike deployment is one where there is a declared state of war, where ADF personnel are engaged in combat, or perhaps they are involved in a peacekeeping operation under a chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council where in that peacekeeping operation they are the target of some kind of military style of attack. The way the definition or the recommendation works is that there is a Strategic Operations Division in the Australian Defence Force. It comprises a variety of people from the ADF, who themselves have significant deployment experience. Two principal things are taken into account. One is the military risk and the other is the environmental risk. The military risk involves the threat to life that is presented by the military task that lies ahead, and there is also environmental risk. For example, the maintainers of our C130s in the Gulf States have to work with icepacks because they are working in 57 degrees Celsius to maintain planes. They have to work for 20 minutes and have a 40-minute break, and that is a significant environmental risk, as you could imagine.

The Chief of Defence recommended, on behalf of the Australian Defence Force, that this be classified as non-war-like, and, yes, it was considered to be very risky. In fact, before the deployment, the Prime Minister said, and I think I may also have said, that it had the potential to be riskier than it was in 1999. As you know, we had then, and we still have, renegade rebel groups of armed soldiers, and possibly civilians, up in the hills. As you know, on the day prior to the deployment we had—and it will be the subject of an investigation—what would appear to be the murder of unarmed people on the streets of Dili.

The recommendation was, as I say, non-warlike. That was accepted by me and it was a whole-of-government decision that it be non-warlike. Were we to take the advice of the member for Cowan, as distinct from the Australian Defence Force itself, and declare it to be warlike prior to the deployment, I cannot begin to imagine the environment that would have been created by the government establishing something as warlike and then having to present to the Australian Defence Force why the definition and terms of deployment and conditions of service would suddenly change. Further to that, the conditions of service are paid from the day of deployment. So in any real sense, whatever the ultimate decision made is, the conditions of service and the money that is paid to the Defence Force personnel remain as whatever the determination of the ADF, supported by the government, is.

I think it was the member for Charlton who said it was the picture that is the difference. It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph, when reporting this, had a photograph of a burnt-out car in Dili and a photograph of a burnt-out car in Baghdad with an armed Australian soldier standing in front of it. It said, ‘What is the difference?’ The difference is that in Baghdad the car has been the subject of an attack, probably using an improvised explosive device, possibly a suicide bomber, and anywhere from a small number to 30 people will have been killed. The target of that attack is coalition forces, of which the Australians are but one. In Dili, the burnt-out car is the result of an arson attack by a group of vandals and youths who are in organised gang related attacks. It is a different environment. (Extension of time granted) East Timor is very dangerous, but the target of the attack is not the Australian soldier. The member for Barton said to Mike Carlton on 2UE that he agreed with the proposition that people were shooting around our soldiers. They are not shooting at our soldiers. Under no circumstances would I or anybody else seek to diminish the threat to their safety in Dili, but it is different from the threats to their safety in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I also point out that the deployment allowance for Dili is $78.60 a day. In the Solomon Islands—and there are soldiers serving in Dili today who served in the Solomon Islands—it is $44 a day. This reflects the assessment that the risk to our soldiers in the Solomon Islands is lower. In the Sudan, it is $69 a day. In the Middle East, it is $61 a day. It is $78.60 a day in Dili to reflect the higher risk. I also add that the field allowance in Dili is $42.80 a day. In Iraq, it is $25 a day. The field allowance is higher in Dili because environmentally, as distinct from militarily, it is a more difficult place for our soldiers to be living.

I go back to the statement made by the member for Griffith, who described Iraq as a total war zone and said, ‘Under no circumstances go there.’ The same member for Griffith went to Dili as a private citizen and demanded not to have any military support, protection or anything of the sort. In fact, he wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to that effect. He has made a very clear distinction between risk in Iraq and risk in East Timor. The allowance for our soldiers in East Timor is $128 a day for a soldier with dependants and $121 a day for those without dependants. In addition to that, from day 91 every dollar is tax free. The deployment allowance is $78.60, which is tax free from the day that they arrive. The tax free arrangements from day 91 apply from the first day of deployment. As you are aware, the soldiers will receive an Australian Service Medal with a Timor clasp. The veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that are serving in Timor are also aware of the difference in risk between the two. As Neil James from the Australian Defence Association said, this is not something that ought to be politicised in the way that it is.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context