Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke in response to the Prime Minister in relation to the deployment, he had this to say:

It is a deployment which has bipartisan support and we would say to the government: ‘As you make your calculations of what is required for the troops in the field, if they require additional support from other elements of their military forces then they ought to get it.’ This is a very difficult task and a dangerous task on which they are engaged.

The member for Brisbane, who just spoke, has touched on a number of issues which I want to speak on. We know now, following the foolish deployment to Iraq, that for reasons the government have kept to themselves they did not deploy enough personnel when they went into Al Muthanna. This put immense pressure on the troops on the ground, who had to do the job on the one hand but on the other hand had to absorb the losses from the ranks as other military personnel went about other jobs or went on leave or whatever. The deployment in Iraq did not contain sufficient men to do the job properly, and the fact that the job was done properly is a reflection of the courage, the dedication and the professionalism of the troops on the ground.

But I would hope that following that mistake, which was rectified further into the deployment, we would not make the same blue in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely spot-on when he said in response to the Prime Minister, ‘If they require additional support from other elements of their military forces, they ought to get it.’ Whether it is additional support to help maintain the very active patrolling that they will be doing or to simply ensure that they have adequate casevac and other dust-off facilities, it is important that they have them.

I want to touch on some other issues which were briefly referred to by the member for Brisbane in his very well-informed speech which certainly showed a great deal of knowledge about what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan. I want to refer in more detail to the article in the Age yesterday written by Tom Hyland. Tom Hyland is described as a senior reporter with the Age, and under the heading ‘Unclear and present danger’ he says this:

The public is left ignorant of what is being done in its name, while soldiers and their families go without recognition.

The body of the article goes on to say:

We have become used to the Federal Government sending troops overseas. They go away on deployments, to peacekeeping operations, to train allies, to help restore stability and aid reconstruction.

No longer, it seems, do we send troops to war where their job, at its most basic, is to kill the enemy and risk being killed themselves.

“More Australian peacekeepers bound for Afghanistan”. That’s how one news bulletin headlined last week’s news that the Government was sending extra troops to southern Afghanistan, a region in the grip of a resurgence by Taliban extremists that is taking a steady toll on Afghan and allied troops, not to mention civilians.

He goes on to say this:

The reality is, there is no peace to keep in southern Afghanistan.

This is especially so where the Australians are headed—Uruzgan province, the home of the Taliban, the site of the first victories in the American-led “war on terror” after the September 11 attacks, and one of the most dangerous places in a very dangerous country.

The headline also reinforces a wider community misunderstanding. For if we’ve become accustomed to the Government sending troops and police away on “deployments”, we have also come to expect all of them will come home again, notwithstanding the deaths of Sergeant Andrew Russell in Afghanistan in 2002, protective service officer Adam Dunning in the Solomons in 2004, Warrant Officer David Nary in Kuwait last year and Private Jake Kovco in Iraq this year.

One of the personnel that Tom Hyland did not mention, of course, was young Private Clark from 3RAR, who lost his life in the Solomons while on patrol. But he goes on to say this:

These deaths have been private burdens, not national ones, carried only by the dead men’s families and friends. And of the soldiers, only Sergeant Russell died as a result of enemy action.

The new and expanded role in Afghanistan might change that, because the troops going to Uruzgan are heading into a particularly nasty war.

In announcing the despatch of troops, the Government conceded the soldiers’ role was dangerous, with the Prime Minister saying any military operation in Afghanistan carried “significant risks”.

But the extent of that risk, and the measures being taken to minimise it, was obscured by the wording of the announcement, which emphasised the troops’ reconstruction role in “community-based projects”.

The Government is sending 150 extra troops, most of them to help protect a Reconstruction Task Force (RTF) due to start moving into Uruzgan this month. In May, when the Government announced it was forming the RTF, it said the 240-strong force would be half army tradesmen and engineers, and half infantry and armoured vehicles to defend them. The reinforcements announced last week double the protection force, meaning there will be about 150 reconstruction troops, protected by 240 infantry.

In other words, despite its name, the majority of the taskforce will be made up of fighting soldiers from the 6th Battalion and the 5th/7th Battalion.

The member for Brisbane mentioned what was contained on the website of the 5/7 RAR battalion in relation to its operational role. So not only are we strengthening the protection force; we also have to understand that those engineers, as well as being involved in reconstruction, will also have to man the perimeter and will have to accept their share of infantry style tasks in addition to their reconstruction work. They are trained in these roles and, if they need to, they will acquit themselves well.

I am just making these points and referring to this article because it drives home what the member for Brisbane says—that is, there is this cone of silence. There is this blanket that seems to be pulled over the operations of our troops overseas. Sometimes the best we get in relation to their operational tasks and the way they are going about them is perhaps a silly response to a dorothy dixer, which unfortunately this Minister for Defence seems to be getting better and better at. But we do not get good information from the government or, indeed, enough good information from Defence as to the role of our troops, the work that they are doing and the way they are going about that. Indeed, further on in his article, Tom Hyland says this:

Trying to get information from official Australian sources is like entering a parallel universe, where responses often bear no relation to the question asked.

I could say to Tom: ‘Welcome to the club! Come and spend a bit of time sitting in question time listening to the questions that are asked and trying to match them to the answers given.’

I want to make this point: our troops that we send overseas have responsibilities. They have 100 years of history and 100 years of proud heritage. They do not fail to meet their responsibilities. Where there is a failure of responsibility is back here in Australia. I think Tom Hyland has put his finger right on it. The member for Brisbane has mentioned it. I think this government has a responsibility to show a bit more commonsense, to show a bit more maturity and, I might say, to show a bit more respect for the troops and their families in the way that it disseminates information about what our troops are doing overseas. The role that our troops are performing—the professionalism, the courage, the tenacity, the dedication and the perseverance to work in those types of environments—demands more than some of the silly stupid dorothy dixers we get out of this Minister for Defence.

We want the government to step up to its responsibilities. We want the government to keep the parliament and the people of Australia properly informed as to the nature of the work that our men and women are doing overseas, the nature of exactly how it is that they are making a difference, and we also want a bit more respect shown for the troops in the way that information is disseminated. I call on the minister to step up to the plate, to show a bit more maturity and to go about his tasks in a way that reflects a bit more responsibility. Indeed, I think it is a very extreme responsibility when you are a Prime Minister, a Minister for Defence or a Leader of the Opposition and you have troops overseas. We want the government to meet those responsibilities.

I just want to close by saying that in my view we should never have pulled the pin on Afghanistan. Why did we pull out from Afghanistan when we did? We must have known that we were going into Iraq when we pulled out of Afghanistan. Why did we cut and run from Afghanistan? Why did we leave those people to themselves? We went there and fought a very damaging, total sort of warfare, not just in the hills and not just in the mountains but in areas which impacted on civilians—civilian men, women and kids. We left that country as a basket case. That is not a word I have picked myself but it was a word that was used by the Afghani ambassador when I asked him about the nature of things in Afghanistan after we had pulled out.

The sheer number of landmines that were planted over a very long period of time in Afghanistan meant that anywhere outside of the capital, Kabul, was a very dangerous place to be. The issue of landmines meant that area that was required for agriculture was denied to people. People could not move back into areas to resettle them and, of course, landmines were often used to protect the illicit, illegal but very well cultivated crops of drugs.

We had a greater responsibility to those people of Afghanistan, and it is certainly time we stepped in there to meet that responsibility. I agree with the member for Brisbane: those European countries that are so often derided by members opposite as being part of old Europe or whatever saw where the real threat was, saw where the real dangers were and saw where the real responsibility was too—to the people of Afghanistan—and I think they have met them.

I am pleased that we are back in Afghanistan. I hate the thought of ever having to deploy our young men and women overseas, and I look forward to a time when we will find other options. But they are there. I know they will do a good job and I hope they all come back safely. Our thoughts go out to them and their families. I say to their families: if they ever want any help or assistance, they know where we are and they should not hesitate to contact us.

See this speech in context