Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the Minister for Defence's sixth update to the House. He made it very clear in March 2011 that he would seek to make timely, relevant responses on combat operations in Afghanistan. He made five of those ministerial statements in 2011, to his credit, and he continues to keep his word in keeping the parliament and, indeed, the nation up to date with the prosecution of those operations.

I note, Minister, that after the last time we spoke the Speaker's position changed with then Speaker Jenkins seeking to play a more fulsome role in the House. It is nice to see that the Speaker did not change when you spoke this time.

The coalition is very pleased to respond to the Minister for Defence on Afghanistan, this being our first time in 2012. As the minister rightly knows, the coalition offers wide, deep and lasting bipartisan support for the prosecution of combat operations and wider operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East area of operations. This bipartisan support is not conditional, except on the national interest. It is given freely based on mutual respect and trust. We acknowledge though, and we have stated conditionally and completely, that it is not a blank cheque for the government. We do expect to be kept updated, both publicly to the House and privately through the conventions of the minister-shadow minister relationship. I acknowledge the minister does both of those well. The coalition will be looking to return to Afghanistan this year as part of our annual due diligence as an opposition and I know the minister will offer every assistance in this task.

It is a critical year for combat operations, as the minister has well highlighted. As we look towards a metric-based commanders' judgment-led withdrawal by 2014, crucial decisions will need to be made and we will be looking for very strong leadership from the minister during the year, especially as the May NATO ISAF leaders summit in Chicago draws near.

I note the minister has outlined three key decisions he is looking for at the May summit: the reaffirmation of the Lisbon security transition commitments, namely the transition to Afghan-led security by 2014; secondly, to agree the size and the shape of the Afghan National Security Force required to maintain that security; and, of course, the broad enduring commitment from the international community to Afghanistan post transition. Consequently, it will be incumbent upon the minister, post the May meeting, to update the House on some areas of national interest that connect to and form a wider part of those three key commitments. I note also that in 2013 the nation will be having an election, so this anticipated, well-heralded and crucial transition will be undertaken at quite a challenging time in our national history. It is incumbent upon both sides of parliament to ensure that the highest priority is accorded to the transition arrangements, and the coalition pledges that it will ensure that every assistance will be given during that time.

From the perspective of the national interest, key things we will be looking for include actual metric based rules for Australia's withdrawal of the bulk of its combat force. What do those rules look like? What do the conditions look like? What are the key areas of the commander's judgment required to be? We note from previous discussions with the minister that, of the 30-odd forward-operating and patrol bases, fewer than 10 are now manned by Australians—the majority are now permanently manned by the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, with Australians using mobile mentoring patrols extensively. Thus our transition is already occurring across Oruzgan.

We are keen to understand the likely force disposition which will remain in theatre post 2014 and the anticipated roles for those forces. Note that the coalition will continue to provide bipartisan support for a force retention post 2014, including for reconstruction, training, force protection and overwatch—including an offensive Special Operations Task Group, or SOTG, presence. I note the minister is continuing to look at areas such as training at the artillery school, which Australian gunners continue to run. We think that is a fine initiative and we also agree with the minister about joining with Her Majesty's military from Great Britain in looking to assist with the military academy in Afghanistan.

We are keen to understand the likely aid and related provincial reconstruction task activities and the quantum involved. We are keen to understand the nature of any proposed bilateral agreement between Australian and Afghanistan, as intimated by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2011, and the extent to which Australian assistance will be committed post 2014. The coalition believes strongly that the Al Minhad Air Base in Dubai should be retained and that every effort should be made to work with the government of the United Arab Emirates to achieve that. Clearly the stability of governments at provincial and national levels, including the challenges and opportunities that presents, is also of some interest. We believe there is considerable opportunity for our parliament to assist nations of the world, including Afghanistan, in setting up their parliaments, especially in the areas of processes, procedures, governance arrangements and the like. We are keen to understand Australia's preparedness to commit forces to restore stability in Afghanistan post 2014 if required and what such a commitment would look like.

I note the minister's confidence that it can be expected that Oruzgan province will transition to Afghan led security force control in the third tranche—expected, give or take, in mid 2013. I praise the minister's confidence and I note it is built on the blood, sweat and tears of our faithful Australian military, which has risen to every task the government of the day has set. In saying so, I thank the fine men and women of MTF 3, based around the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and I wish the lads and lasses of the 9th Battalion, the bulk of MTF 4, the best as they continue in the fine tradition.

The coalition is under no illusion concerning the tough road to transition. Four of our fine men and women were killed in action and 10 wounded in action from green on blue attacks alone in 2011. Other nations suffered the same types of tragedies. It will be a difficult time; there is no question about it. I note from the minister's update that 1,200 suspects were detained between August 2010 and early February this year, with 159 transferred to either Afghan or US custody and 11 detainees released and recaptured. I also note that there were 71 allegations of detainee mismanagement but that none have been found to have substance. The bottom line is that our enemy is trying to exploit what they see as our weaknesses: our humanity, our rules of engagement and our belief in the rule of law—things that we as a parliament see as great national strengths. I note that we are above our enemy, with our greater moral set and our stronger values. We will continue to investigate allegations where they are raised. But our enemies should know that raising an allegation is not an easy path to achieving release from custody and a return to trying to assist the Taliban in their fight against Australian forces and the wider ISAF. We will continue to investigate allegations but we will not let them be a crutch to our enemy as they are seeking to make them.

Minister, I am pleased that, after I have continually asked you for 12 months, you have finally dispatched an interrogation capability—18 months after the military put up a cabinet submission. I note you have deployed nine people, including six interrogators. If my maths serves me right, with 1,200 detainees over, let us call it, 20 months, that is about 60 detainees a month—on average two per day. As a former trained interrogator, I know that interrogations might take four or five days. If there are only six interrogators—let us put them on a 12-hour shift—that is only three interrogators available at any one time. With two detainees coming in every day on average and with an interrogation taking four or five days, you might have three interrogators working across 10 detainees. I think our interrogators might be stretched. Minister, there may be room for adding a few more interrogators into the order of battle. I note the increase in initial screening from 96 hours to three days plus another three days if deemed necessary to complete the investigation. That is in line with our ISAF partners and the coalition supports it completely.

Minister, I note from your update on inquiry reports that we are still waiting for 15 reports—that is out of the 32 soldiers killed in action. I note the measures you have outlined to ensure that is being addressed—a senior Army lawyer to head up the commission of inquiry plus an admin chief of staff. The coalition agrees that not all reports should be publicly released, but we do demand that the families are provided with them expeditiously and that their views are considered in terms of wider release. We also hope that a clear chain of command is established to ensure that the families who are waiting for these 15 reports, some from 2010, are kept fully informed about any delays and what the military is doing to overcome them.

Minister, there is an issue of taxation which needs to be addressed. The international campaign allowance was legislated in 2001 by the previous government to remunerate defence members for warlike service. It is designed to compensate members for the environmental and dreadful factors of combat operations in specific international campaigns such as Slipper—as in Operation Slipper, Mr Speaker. The international campaign allowance is zoned according to three locations in the Middle East—Afghanistan; Iraq, which has subsequently ceased; and the wider maritime environment. The practice provides tax exemption to ADF members on warlike service. It has been around for 60-odd years, including Korea and Malaya, and is well understood and well supported.

Under section 23AD of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ADF members serving on warlike operations are exempt from tax on salaries and allowances they earn. For soldiers who are wounded in action, the tax exemption extends to periods of hospitalisation regardless of hospital location or duration. The challenge is that if a soldier is hospitalised but, for reasons of mental health or great concern for family, seeks to leave hospital but go back every single day to receive the care that they would otherwise have received, they are then penalised by virtue of the tax act. It has nothing to do with the minister or indeed elements of Defence; it occurs under the tax act because they have chosen for their own mental health or their own family care to leave hospital, even though they should have remained hospitalised. It is the coalition's contention that something needs to change to allow circumstances where the minister can approve the continuation of tax exempt status to allowances in such circumstances so that soldiers are not penalised if they should be in hospital but decide to go home and then travel back and forth.

Likewise, members who undertake escort duties for wounded soldiers or soldiers killed in action do so as a primary role and they are aware before they deploy that when an escort leaves an area of operations they are no longer providing warlike service and therefore they do not receive the tax exemption, even though they are ordered to leave the combat operation to escort home a wounded soldier or indeed a mate who has been killed in action. I note that on returning a range of allowances are paid such as travelling allowance, which is about half of what they would have received as a taxable amount if they were serving on operations. Again, it is the coalition's contention that there should be an option for the minister to overrule and make a determination in that area that would enable those on escort duties, or other duties, to continue to receive the allowances because they are operating under orders. Cases such as bringing wounded soldiers or those killed in action home could then also be taken into consideration. I will leave those issues with the minister. I know they are taxation issues and not defence issues and they are outside the minister's purview, but I am sure with great goodwill on both sides we can seek to address some of them.

I would like to raise one further issue. It is time for our nation to rise as one and begin to jointly own the support for the hundreds of our wounded warriors who are returning to our shores. It is time for our country to do something similar to what the British are doing through the establishment of their Help for Heroes foundation. Help for Heroes raises money to support members of the UK armed forces who have been wounded in the service of their country. It is a UK based charity specifically set up to help wounded service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Help for Heroes was founded by Bryn—an ex-serviceman—and Emma Parry in October 2007. The charity is strictly non-political and non-critical; they simply want to help wounded service men and women. They want to assist people who are currently serving or who have served in the armed forces, and their dependants. They want to promote and protect the health of those who have been wounded or injured while serving in the armed forces through the provision of facilities, equipment or services for their rehabilitation, and to make grants to other charities that assist members of the armed forces and their dependants. They consider anyone who volunteers to serve in time of war, knowing that they may risk all, is a hero. I think they are right. They believe these are ordinary people doing extraordinary things and some of them, and their families, will live with the consequences of their service for the rest of their life.

Help for Heroes asks supporters in the UK to simply 'do their bit' to show these extraordinary young men and women that they are cared for by the community. Help for Heroes has so far raised over £125 million—A$184 million. Of that, £107 million has gone directly to helping injured men and women of the UK armed forces. Projects include the rehabilitation complex at Headley Court, money for combat stress, adaptive adventure training, extension of the former North Wales Medical Centre and the creation of a £6 million quick reaction fund to support individuals in need, managed by the service charities. It has been able to spend close to the amount raised as it has also set up the wholly owned trading subsidiary Help for Heroes Trading Co., which sells merchandise and gifts in order to cover administrative overheads. The money is used for providing much needed services that aid wounded soldiers' recovery. The money both funds capital projects and provides individual support in conjunction with delivering charities. Individuals are encouraged to raise money through activities and fundraising events, from baking cakes and shaving heads to parachuting, walking and cycling. It is about encouraging a nation to embrace their own.

I propose a unity ticket between the government and the opposition for us to join together to see what we can do about setting up a foundation in Australia to give the community ownership. I know the support government provides is very good, and the coalition provides bipartisan support for it, but this is about the community; this is about us giving the community an opportunity to come together and help. This is the least we can do as our fighting men and women continue to do what they can to provide peace and security for our nation.

I thank the minister for his update. It is welcome. I thank him for his continued commitment to ensuring the House and indeed the nation is aware of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

See this speech in context