Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in relation to the Prime Minister’s statement, to reaffirm Labor’s support for the new detachment of troops to be sent to Afghanistan and to take issue with some of the statements made by the Prime Minister—in particular, his attempt to argue as hypocritical Labor’s calls since 2004 for more effort to be put in to Afghanistan.

The fact is it has been a bad week for the Prime Minister. He has been forced to admit the government was wrong on a number of occasions. His answer to the West Papuan asylum seekers was to excise Australia, to pretend Australia does not exist—a fiction, a pretence—not for good policy reasons, but to appease Indonesia. He was forced into a humiliating backdown—humiliating for him yes, but great for this country. It demonstrated what Labor has been arguing for a considerable time: we need to show greater commitment, compassion, decency and fairness to those escaping repressive circumstances. It is also a commitment of compassion and principle that has been demonstrated not only by the Labor Party but also by some very courageous members within the government ranks. The Prime Minister was wrong, he was made to admit it and the parliament prevailed.

It is also interesting to see that this week he has changed his mind in relation to allowing a conscience vote over the issue of therapeutic stem cells, something he should have allowed four years ago. As leader of the Labor Party at that time, I allowed such a conscience vote, and urged him to do likewise. Stubbornly, he refused. He has now been forced to relent, and I welcome that.

The statement we are debating today is in relation to more troops into Afghanistan. Interestingly, it is also effectively a concession by the Prime Minister that he got something else wrong in 2002—his strategy in the war on terror. By this statement, we are now committing an additional 150 troops of the ADF to reinforce the reconstruction task force and to provide enhanced force protection. There are now 200 special forces in Afghanistan that will be complemented by this recent announcement. But prior to 2005, and after our November 2002 withdrawal, we were down to just one soldier—a solitary lieutenant colonel. A token gesture while we were diverted, with the United States, into Iraq—the wrong war and the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

This latest commitment is supported by Labor. In March 2004, following a visit to Afghanistan by the member for Griffith and the member for Bruce, Labor argued that we needed to increase our effort in Afghanistan. Those two members visited Afghanistan in 2004. They had seen the situation for themselves, and they reported back to the parliament. As the member for Bruce said on Monday, when he and the member for Griffith were there, it was obvious that there were continuing problems in Afghanistan and that we should not have withdrawn in 2002. So it is wrong and it is deeply disappointing that the Prime Minister should say, in presenting this statement last week, that Labor is being opportunistic now in saying we should not have withdrawn. We are used to the Prime Minister using weasel words and skirting around the truth and making cheap political points about a matter of the utmost seriousness—global terrorism and the lives of Australian soldiers.

The Prime Minister did rightly point out in his statement that the stability of Afghanistan has wider implications for global security. He said that is why the Australian government is committed to ensuring that Afghanistan achieves long-term peace. We recognise the gravity of this decision and the danger that will be faced by our troops. They go with our complete support. The Australian Defence Force is seriously stretched, and this additional commitment will necessarily add to their load. We admire and recognise their dedication and their professionalism in Iraq, in East Timor, in the Solomons and in Afghanistan, but we need to ensure that the special forces, such as these engineers, are adequately protected by infantry forces on the ground. This is particularly the case in this instance, where Afghanistan is a very dangerous place. It is a serious war zone. I have every confidence that our troops will acquit themselves well, but we must never underestimate the danger to which they will be exposed.

The Prime Minister says that Labor’s call since March 2004 to increase the commitment in Afghanistan is opportunistic. He says that we supported him in 2002 when he brought the troops home. It is true that Labor supported the decision to bring the troops home in November 2002. But, as usual, the Prime Minister did not tell the whole truth when he made this observation. Let us look at the context of the support for that withdrawal by Labor back then. ‘Context’ is one of the Prime Minister’s favourite words. He is always saying that we quote him out of context. He is the one that is guilty of that same sin. Let us look at the context of the statement of our support for withdrawal in November 2002. First, we were assured by the government that the situation in Afghanistan was under control and that there was no need to stay. We were never told of a letter from the government of Afghanistan asking us to stay. We said at the time that the Afghanistan terrorism was the key base for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We offered full support in the fight against terrorism—globally, after September 11, and locally in our region after the Bali bombings.

So, at the time, in 2002, I welcomed the decision to bring the troops home. I accepted the government’s assurances and the government’s briefings that the situation in Afghanistan was under control. In the spirit of bipartisanship and relying on that advice—the Prime Minister’s word—we accepted the government’s decision. We believed the government. We now know that the situation was not under control and that in fact the government of Afghanistan had asked, that same month, for our troops to stay. In November 2002, the Afghanistan government wrote, asking for the continuing military assistance, saying that terrorism was alive and well. So the Prime Minister was telling me, the Labor Party and the Australian people that the job was done and the Afghanistan government was pleading for the troops to stay.

I was not told about that letter in 2002, at the very time the Prime Minister was announcing the withdrawal of the troops. Certainly the Australian public was not told. That letter only came to light in 2005, not in 2002. It did not come to light until three years after we were told the job was done. It is another example of this government not being honest with us or with the Australian people. The government says it wants bipartisan support for our troops. It says it wants bipartisan support for the war on terror. We are prepared to give it. But, in giving bipartisan support, we are entitled to be treated honestly and honourably, and we have not been.

In fact, the Prime Minister’s statement that we are debating perpetuates the myth that the job is done. In that same presentation the other day he said that, ‘With the completion of the task’—he was talking back then in 2002—‘we withdrew the troops.’ He is perpetuating the deceit. Clearly, the task was not completed and the decision to send more troops there last year and now, complemented by the announcement the other day, is an admission that they got it wrong. How can we have a bipartisan position on this issue of great national importance, involving national security and exposing the lives of our troops, if we are not told the full facts? A decent democracy demands it. What, of course, the Prime Minister does is stand condemned for withholding that information to cover his wrong decision to follow George Bush to war in Iraq.

The second reason we supported the troops coming home then, apart from being told the job was done, was the intervention of that terrible bombing in Bali. I said at the time, post October 2002, that the threat of terrorism on our doorstep meant that we had to reinforce the fight against terror closer to home. The Prime Minister says that we should not cut and run from Iraq, but that is what he did in Afghanistan, and this announcement the other day is an admission of that fault.

The Prime Minister likens the war in Iraq to the war in Afghanistan. They are not alike. They are two different circumstances. Labor supported the intervention in Afghanistan. We did not support the intervention in Iraq. Afghanistan is different from Iraq. The reason is that the US alliance, the ANZUS alliance, required us to support the Americans when they were attacked on their home soil. For the first time ever, that clause of the ANZUS alliance was invoked and we had no choice. We accepted that. But in addition to the ANZUS alliance requiring us to come to the assistance of the Americans, the intervention in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the United Nations. It was a genuine global response to the war on terrorism. So we supported it. Iraq, on the other hand, was not linked to the war on terror. We were told that we had to go into Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction—weapons which we now know did not exist. It was not UN sanctioned; it was a unilateral US action with the coalition of the willing.

We say that the troops go with our very best of blessings. We support this commitment. It is much needed on the information that is available to us today and that Labor drew attention to more than two years ago. The troops go with our best wishes. We wish them God speed. We know that they will acquit themselves honourably, as do all of our troops in the international theatres of war, and we hope for them to return quickly and safely. This is a very dangerous mission. This has been highlighted by other speakers—the member for Brisbane and the member for Cowan. But Labor will always support our troops in the theatres of battle, even where we have disagreed with the government sending them. It is not their decision to go. In a democracy they follow the orders of the day, the government of the day. Our argument is with the government, not with the troops.

On this occasion we agree with the government, but we condemn them for failing to act earlier. We condemn them for allowing al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and strengthen in Afghanistan. We condemn them for ignoring the warnings, we condemn them for dismissing the pleas of the Afghanistan government in 2002 to keep the presence and we condemn them for the deceit surrounding their assertion that the task was done. Our troops will act with honour, I am convinced of that. It is our Prime Minister who does not.

See this speech in context