Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thought it was good that in this chamber we had both the member for Lingiari and the member for Herbert, from whose electorates predominantly all these troops who are deployed in Afghanistan come. I would say to both of them, and in particular the member for Herbert, that it is really important to the families of those serving men and women in Afghanistan—and, for that matter, in Iraq—that they should know that both sides of politics support what they are doing and that we value it very much.

People often overlook the fact that troops, Navy personnel and Air Force personnel do not get to vote about whether they should be deployed, how they should be deployed or in what number. That is the role of executive government and this parliament. Even when we may disagree on the opposition side about a particular deployment, as we have in relation to the war in Iraq, we still support those soldiers, we still feel for their families and we are still 100 per cent behind them in every way and anyway we can be.

This debate in the Main Committee arises because the Prime Minister made a statement about the additional deployment of troops to Iraq—I think in the order of about 120. Again, I place on record my appreciation for the good work of the troops who are already there or who have served there, and I wish those who are going there every success. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who supported the ministerial statement, indicated that this is in fact a deployment with heightened danger to the wellbeing and safety of those troops. We sincerely hope on both sides of the parliament that they return home well and safe at the conclusion of their deployment.

But I do want to enter a note of complaint. Here we are, with the Prime Minister making a ministerial statement to send more troops into harm’s way, yet the Minister for Defence has not participated in the ministerial statement. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has not participated. I very much regret that. I do not think that it is lowering their dignity to come into the Main Committee and place on public record in Hansard their support for the decision, which obviously they have been involved in. Their lack of participation—and, I might say, of the junior minister—in this debate to take note of the ministerial statement, I find galling. I think if I went to the Blacktown RSL sub-branch or the Rooty Hill RSL sub-branch, where the state conference was held, or the St Mary’s RSL sub-branch and said, ‘Yes, we’re sending more troops over to Afghanistan but the Minister for Defence, the junior minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs didn’t participate,’ they would be rather shocked that they did not. I think it is offensive to those troops that there is nothing placed in this Hansard record from those three ministers.

Everyone remembers what they were doing on September 11. I can tell you that I was watching TV and surfing channels. My son told me to switch to Foxtel and, regrettably, I saw the second plane hit the tower. We can all remember what we were doing and it changed the world forever. The United States invoked the ANZUS treaty, and that is why Australian troops initially were in Afghanistan. For the first time ever ANZUS was invoked by the United States and Australia responded, as we are required to do, and we sent troops to tackle terror central—to tackle the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Of course, it is true that when Australian troops were withdrawn the opposition supported that withdrawal. We did so on the basis that we could trust what the Prime Minister had said—that it was now appropriate for us to withdraw, that the task had been achieved. We now know that we were misled and that in 2002 the Prime Minister of Afghanistan had pleaded with the Australian government—had pleaded with the Prime Minister—not to withdraw our troops. That was completely unknown to the opposition. So in question time, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs wants to make the point that we supported the withdrawal, it is absolutely true. But, like the Australian people whose trust was breached, we were in ignorance of the real situation there and the fact that the Prime Minister of Afghanistan had pleaded with us to stay.

Why are we back there? We went from our initial deployment down to one soldier, a lieutenant colonel. I have, with my tongue in cheek, described it as a one-man war. Up until April 2004 no-one had rung the bell or belled the cat until the shadow foreign affairs minister, who I note is in the chamber now, went over to Afghanistan and appraised the situation for himself. On his return, he reported to the opposition, and it was on that basis that we started calling for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. We in the opposition have always seen the Iraq war as a sidetrack to the main game, which was terror central—finishing off al-Qaeda once and for all. What a terrible price we have paid for neglecting Afghanistan. As I mentioned before, I think the whole world—certainly the Western world and indeed the Arab world—supported the United States in the aftermath of September 11 when they initially went into Iraq to tackle the Taliban and to tackle al-Qaeda. Unfortunately that goodwill and that sense of shared dismay, alarm and outrage at the attacks in New York by al-Qaeda have, I suppose, subsequently dissipated quite grievously. Of course, America has never since enjoyed the same level of goodwill as they did on that occasion.

I want to raise a couple of other matters about this deployment. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have highlighted the danger in which we are placing our troops. I do not think it is right to suggest that they are merely performing peacekeeping operations. When the time comes to consider what appropriate recognition we should provide for our troops who have served in Afghanistan, I hope we do not get into the kind of unseemly debate that has occasionally occurred in relation to other deployments. I hope when those decisions are made that our troops are appropriately recognised for their service. As I say, they do not get to vote on whether they should go; they do not get to vote on what number should go. It is we who direct young men and women to go on these deployments. They have no say at all in it.

I would like to finish my remarks where I started and say that these troops enjoy our support, above and beyond politics. They are fine young men and women and wherever we have deployed troops overseas they have always done us proud. The member for Herbert would understand my frustration at no longer being a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and at no longer having the opportunity, as I once did, to see serving men and women in the field and reassure them of our support. I have always felt that, if it is good enough for a country to send troops overseas, no matter what the role, it is good enough for members of parliament to go over there and see them in action. I have not been to Afghanistan and I have not been to Iraq, but I have seen our troops in most other situations where they have been placed—in Rwanda, in Somalia, several times in East Timor, and several times in Bougainville. I wish I could have the opportunity to see them where they are currently deployed, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I regret that that opportunity has not presented itself to me; nevertheless, I am always in awe of the fantastic job they do.

I support our serving men and women. In particular, we support them in this dangerous mission, which is to try to make up for the fact that Australia took its eye off the ball when it came to Afghanistan and we are now desperately trying to make amends by way of this additional deployment. We have no idea how long it will take or what the exit strategy is.

The honourable member for Herbert talked about the expansion of the Army. I could talk about that for a little while, but I do want to make a couple of points. One is that, at the last election, the opposition was committed to an additional battalion. The other thing is that I still believe we are not treating our Army Reserve properly. I think there is a real case for reform and better utilisation. The reserve is costing us over $1 billion. Whilst I do not quibble about the quality of the people who are reservists—that is far from the point I am trying to make—I do say that we have not really tackled the issues of training and equipment that would allow them to be more properly utilised.

We ought to make no mistake: the Army and Defence Force are stretched beyond anything we have seen since the Vietnam War. In newspapers I see that columnists are now starting to point out the nature of how stretched we are. I hope the member for Lindsay would agree with me that we are inevitably going to get into trouble when we have departed from the three routine, which has always been mantra in the Army—that is, you deploy one unit, you rest one unit up and you have one unit training up. This government has changed it. We are down to two. The more you stretch the Army the way we are, the greater the probability that we will unintentionally cause a mishap because we are so stretched.

I pray that that will not be the case, but we ought to put into perspective this proposition about expansion of the Army. There is no cabinet submission, notwithstanding the story in the Australian newspaper. There is no indication of when a submission will be made. But I support the government in looking at how stretched the Army is because I think it is critical—and they have never since the Vietnam War been operating at a higher tempo than they are today, and that is not necessarily a good thing for them, because I think there are measures that we need to take.

See this speech in context