Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with my colleagues in this debate on Australia’s engagement in the war in Afghanistan. I know we all share the same sense of responsibility for explaining to the Australian people our role in Afghanistan, the reasons for being there and the future of our commitment in that country.

It is true that there have been regular reports given to the parliament during the last term of government by the Minister for Defence and others to inform members and senators as well as the public of the progress our troops and other personnel are making and the strategy we are pursuing. It is equally true to say, however, that nothing has engaged individual members and senators and pledged us each to undertake closer scrutiny and inquiry into the specifics of the war in quite the same way as this debate has. I think that the Australian community feels the same way. They will continue to seek answers about Afghanistan and hold us to the parameters and time lines we have set out for the Australian mission in the course of this debate. As parliamentarians and particularly as government MPs we will need to meet those expectations—and that is a good thing.

On that logic, I support the calls made by earlier speakers in this debate for the parliament to play a greater role in the decision to commit troops to go to war in the name of this country and with the support of this country. If the executive cannot convince the members of this parliament of the justification for military action, how can we expect the community to be convinced?

Openness and transparency about the reasons for going to war and putting our troops in harm’s way is what we are engaging in here and it is being universally welcomed as constructive and necessary. A requirement for a similar resolution by the parliament, authorising the commitment of our defence forces prior to their deployment, is a proper acknowledgement of the gravity of the decision and underscores the fact that it is a decision for which members of parliament ultimately have to take responsibility.

In the case of Afghanistan, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, a debate about Australia’s commitment to the war in 2001 would have been quite straightforward for most members and senators, while there is much less certainty now about the correct course of action in what has become a far more deadly and complicated conflict. One of the valuable things about this debate has been the opportunity it has presented to remind us of the history of the Afghanistan war and how Australia came to join the war in 2001.

In 2001 the obligation on Australia as an alliance partner of the United States and an active participant in the United Nations was unambiguous, at least it was for me. Following the terrorist attacks on America on September 11 Australia committed to military action against the Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan on the basis of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386, which authorised an international security force in that country. The ANZUS Treaty was also invoked at that time. Nine years on, Australia’s defence forces remain in Afghanistan as part of a multinational force. There are 47 countries still engaged in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force, representing a coalition of over 120,000 troops. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out in his speech, the United Nations’ resolution authorising the coalition’s continued presence in Afghanistan has been renewed 10 times since 2001. That international consensus—also confirmed this year by the broad participation at the London and Kabul conferences—is built on the resolve of all nations to ensure that Afghanistan can never again become a safe haven for terrorists and a base for attacks like the ones in the United States or Bali.

On the question of Australia’s military presence in Afghanistan, I have always found reassurance in the fact that it is sanctioned by the international community through that UN resolution and also that Australia is at the table when it comes to determining the ongoing legitimacy of the engagement, the goals being pursued and the strategy to achieve those goals. The next opportunity will be in Lisbon later this week. Our support for that UN resolution has to be consistent with Australia’s national interests and does not absolve our government from constantly reviewing our mission in Afghanistan to ensure that those interests are being advanced and protected. The question for all of us is whether that initial justification that seemed so clear-cut in 2001 still holds now that, as we all well know, the Taliban was removed from office in Afghanistan shortly after the coalition entered the country and al-Qaeda has shifted its activities to other, friendly countries.

I am not an enthusiast for this or any other war but I am a rationalist. I have to be able to construct an argument one way or the other to come to a conclusion and as much as I want to stand here and say we should pull our troops out now, I cannot follow the argument through in my mind to make that case—not yet. The member for Parramatta explained it in her speech as a battle between her heart and her head and I know exactly how she feels. Although I am coming down on the side of continued support for Australia’s commitment, this debate has given me a much clearer understanding of the conditions that I now have on my continued support and of the questions that will need to be answered if I am to go the whole four years foreshadowed by the Prime Minister.

In coming to my conclusion in this debate I am influenced by some fundamental principles and some judgments made on a more practical level. I support Australia’s role as a positive partner in the international community and accept the responsibilities that come with that. In saying that, I am acutely aware that the true burden of those responsibilities is borne by the members of our defence forces who we send to defend our territory, our values and our desire to live in peace and security. It is really too much to ask of any Australian and yet they do it for all of us. They make us proud, and we are forever in their debt.

I also think that fighting in the country on and off for the past nine years does give us some responsibility for the Afghan people—not a responsibility that should hold us in Afghanistan indefinitely but a responsibility that should give us some pause before concluding that we should abandon our part in the whole exercise. On a practical level I am persuaded by the evidence that indicates that the Australian contingent in Afghanistan is making progress towards its objective of training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade in Oruzgan province.

I can understand that there is a perception out in the community that we have been in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years and if we have not managed to do the job by now we should give it away, but the fact is that our commitment to Afghanistan has taken a number of different forms over that period and included a time when Australian troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan altogether. It was only in October 2008 that the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force was deployed to undertake the training of Afghan forces. That is now taking place within the context of Barack Obama’s revised strategy for Afghanistan, announced in December 2009, which includes the surge of 30,000 additional US troops. That strategy acknowledges that the purpose of the International Security Assistance Force is to create the conditions that will allow for the transition of security responsibility to the Afghan government and the subsequent withdrawal of international forces from the country. A clearly defined strategy with measurable outcomes along the way, such as the numbers of Afghan soldiers trained and their capacity to assume security responsibility, is not the same as writing a blank cheque to the Americans and our other allies in Afghanistan.

It is up to us, however, as members of parliament to keep scrutinising our commitment and its progress against the task set for our forces in Oruzgan and the wider strategy. That wider strategy has to acknowledge that the goal of a secure and functional Afghanistan is not going to be achieved in the long term through military means. Achieving security and stability through force is not an end in itself; it can only provide the basis from which the Afghan people can build a viable future. Our job over the next few years of providing the Afghan government with a competent and independent security force has to be matched by efforts to find a political and diplomatic solution to the governance and economic and development issues that will otherwise perpetrate Afghanistan’s unrest and conflict beyond anything Australia’s 1,550 soldiers can ever hope to overcome.

I can be convinced that our soldiers should remain in Afghanistan assisting the international forces to prepare the Afghan government and its army to assume full responsibility for the security of that country, but only if the international community around the NATO-ISAF table shows that it is serious about ensuring that continued corruption, poor governance and lack of development in Afghanistan is not allowed to render that a pointless exercise. I can accept that we need to give the current strategy time to prove itself, but the parliament has to be assured in an ongoing way that what we are asking our troops to do is possible and can be shown to be bringing us closer in a tangible way to the time when handover to the Afghan government can take place.

I welcome the commitment by the Prime Minister given in her speech that opened this debate that she will make a statement on Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan each year that our forces remain on the ground there. This is in addition to the ongoing reports that the defence minister and others have already been making to the House in each session of parliament. Just as we have in this debate, members and senators have to take those opportunities to rigorously evaluate the status of our commitment to Afghanistan and judge the merits of our continued role.

In the meantime, like all members and senators, I fervently hope that the conflict in Afghanistan does not have to be brought before the parliament again in the way it already has on 21 sad occasions since 2001. Those have been the times when we have paused to pay our respects to the Australian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan while in the service of our nation. I think particularly of Lance Corporal Jason Marks, a young commando who grew up in Yeppoon in Central Queensland and who was killed fighting Taliban insurgents in 2008. This debate is carried out in honour of those men and their loved ones because we owe it to them, and to their mates who continue to serve in Afghanistan, to recognise the job they are doing in our names and, tragically, the sacrifice some have been called upon to make.

I offer my condolences to the families and friends of our fallen soldiers, who have to live with their loss every day. It is our job to ensure that they live also with the knowledge that their sons and fathers and husbands and brothers were and are, on behalf of our country, doing a job that the Australian parliament regards as worthy and necessary and that the Australian people can support.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context