Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There is no more serious decision that a government can take than a commitment of troops overseas. When we look at the situation in Afghanistan, there is clearly a case for this deployment to go ahead. Labor stands to support the government on that, but we also demand that the government support the troops properly in the field and, on their return, ensure that they get a fair go and the sort of support they require to do the job we know they can do. We support our troops and we have confidence in them. Australian troops have gone to a range of theatres overseas in peacekeeping roles and in roles such as this—which, I think, is far more than peacekeeping—and have always performed with great credit, with great professionalism and with great dignity. As other speakers have said, we also have to look at why we are returning to Afghanistan in the circumstances that we now face. I would just like to remind the House of a motion some time ago that stated:

That this House:

(1)

recognises the continued, central importance of Afghanistan as critical to the war against terrorism;

(2)

recognises that al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist organisations continue to pose a security threat to the government of Afghanistan;

(3)

recognises that removing this threat requires both the political transformation and economic reconstruction of Afghanistan with the full support of the international community; and

(4)

recognises that Australia must play a significant and substantive role, both bilaterally and multilaterally in under-pinning a long-term, secure future for the people of Afghanistan.

That motion is incredibly relevant to this debate. It could have been said by the Prime Minister. It could have been said by the Minister for Defence. It could have been said just the other day in the House at the time of the initial motion to take note of the deployment and the undertaking of this commitment, but it was not said then; it was said on 29 March 2004. It was moved by the member for Griffith and seconded by me, in private members’ business, following our return from Afghanistan just a few weeks earlier.

The circumstances we now face in Afghanistan should not be a surprise to anyone. That the circumstances were a surprise to this government, and that it took so long before serious action was taken, says something, I think, about the way this government operates and the sorts of choices it makes with respect to where and how it commits. What we are dealing with now is not new. The Prime Minister actually tried to take some cheap political shots at the member for Griffith in the House the other day when moving this motion—talking about opportunism. The fact is that the member for Griffith said this on the record years ago. He made it clear, after we visited Afghanistan, that there was a continuing clear and present danger there and that the circumstances faced by Afghanistan remained an international concern. He said we had cut and run too early in a situation where it was not right. We heard earlier the comments made by my friend—and I am happy to call him a friend—Ambassador Mahmoud Saikal on the circumstances in Afghanistan. Having heard the very words of President Hamid Karzai in the palace in Kabul, I know that those circumstances were clear back in 2004. But what did we have? We had one person left from the Australian commitment at that stage.

When we came back from Afghanistan and raised these issues with the government, we were laughed at and ignored. Now we are going back again and, I can tell you, it is worse now than when I was there. There is no doubt about that, from the reports that are coming through. There is no doubt that the situation our forces face over there is worse than it was when we were there in 2004. It was obvious then, as it has become obvious now. I go back to a speech some time ago in which someone said:

The importance of Australia’s role as one of the countries that went into Afghanistan and as one of the countries that stays there and helps with the rebuilding is absolutely paramount. There are enormous jobs that are required to be done and there is a range of innovative ways that they are being tackled by the international community. One of the projects that was discussed with us was PRTs—province reconstruction teams. These projects are being undertaken by the Americans, British, New Zealanders, Germans and others, but there is not a PRT that the Australian government has chosen to sponsor as yet. I would certainly urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs to look at the issue of PRTs as being something that Australia could do in addition to what it is currently doing to help rebuild that country in a holistic manner. If we do not deal with these issues now, we will find ourselves in a situation where we have to deal with them in the future.

That is a direct quote from a speech I made in the House on 29 March 2004. I am happy to quote myself in these circumstances because for once I was right. The situation was clear then—and what are we doing now? We are backing up a PRT run by the Netherlands. I support that. I think it is an excellent idea. We have to look at what we can do in respect of rebuilding Afghanistan, because the situation in Afghanistan with respect to the drug trade, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban—and its central role in the development and fostering of international terrorism in that region—must be dealt with. One thing we heard loud and clear from the people of Afghanistan, and from the leadership of that country, when we were there was that they have a long history of fighting in this area, a long history of being invaded, a long history of removing invaders and repelling them, and a long history of being ignored. If it continues again, we will find a similar situation.

There is no doubt, and it was clear at that time, that we got out too early. There is no doubt, and it was clear, that the Americans embarking on what they have done in Iraq was a very bad move. It was clear, from everyone we met in Afghanistan at that time, that there was absolutely no doubt at all that the job was still to be done—and now we are seeing the result of that.

I wish our troops all the very best. As I said earlier, I have tremendous confidence in them, their professionalism, their training and their capacity to be able to do this job. But they need not only our support here in this chamber; they also need our support with equipment and logistics. They need our support from go to whoa to make sure that they can do the job we know they can do. What we do not need is a situation where, all of a sudden, the government wakes up, as it has done on this occasion, and realises that it got out too early. It is another example of a foreign policy failure from this government. It is typical of how it has handled these issues over the years. It says something about the fact that it has not got its eye on the job. It is one thing to follow the Americans—and I can understand why, in some cases, that would be what you would do—but you can certainly see here another example of foreign policy by this government in which it is going back to fix something that it should have done properly in the first place.

I know there are other speakers who wish to speak tonight, and we are running out of time, so I will leave my comments there. I wish the troops all the very best and safety in what they must do.

See this speech in context