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

I thank the minister for his continued commitment to keep the House up to date with the progress of combat operations and the work of international communities within ISAF and the wider body of work, including the reconstruction and aid effort within Afghanistan. The coalition notes the outcomes of the Chicago summit. We note the outcomes that NATO has released. We note the range of comments on the delivery of outcomes including the three points that President Obama has released. We also note that the Oruzgan transition in tranche 3 is looking to commence mid-year with completion over 18 months from July to December next year in transitioning from combat to support. We continue to reiterate that this should always be a metrics based, command judged and led transition. Commanders should be the ones telling us patrol base by patrol base, valley by valley, ridgeline by ridgeline, the pace at which transition should occur.

I refer the minister to what would appear to be confusing statements from the Prime Minister. I am sure the minister will be able to fix these up at some stage or provide some guidance. I note the Prime Minister on 16 April, when announcing Hamid Karzai's next few months in terms of tranche 3 and transition, indicated the bulk of our force and enablers would transition in 12 to 18 months. That would cease their work literally by Christmas 2013. The Prime Minister said:

We will no longer be conducting routine front-line operations within the Afghan National Security Forces. The Australian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team will have completed its work and the majority of our troops will have returned home. We will no longer be conducting routine front-line operations … Provincial Reconstruction Team will have completed its work.

The first question is: did the Prime Minister mean the PRT or was she in fact referring to the mentoring taskforce? In terms of the bulk of our troops coming home, is that a firm commitment from the Prime Minister that at the cessation by, or no later than, the end of next year the MRT will indeed commence coming home in bulk? I note that in the joint transcript between the minister and the Prime Minister on Monday 21 May, the Prime Minister again said:

In Oruzgan Province, in which we work, transition begins in coming months and, as you know, we expect this process to take 12 to 18 months, and at its conclusion the majority of Australian troops will be able to return home.

The Prime Minister makes the same statement. She then goes on to say:

Our mission after transition will change and it will evolve. Afghanistan will have responsibility for its own security. ISAF will have made a shift from its combat mission, but there will still be a continuing need for support.

However, under questioning, later on the Prime Minister made this statement:

At the end of 2014, what you see is the end of the current mission, the current combat mission, and a move to a different set of circumstances …

All we simply ask is for some clarification, Minister, in terms of whether 2013 is the end of it. Is it the best likelihood under the best guidance you currently have for the full transition from combat to support? Will the bulk of Australian combat troops be returning by the end of that transition, currently somewhere between July and December 2013, or will the bulk of the troops be moving in 2014?

General Allen's statement that in the last 12 months there has been an expansion of the Afghan security forces from 276,000 to 340,000 is a welcome statement, including his comments:

The expansion and professionalization of Afghan security forces now allow us to recover the remaining 23,000 US surge troops by this fall—

I gather he means August or around that time—

enable us to continue to pressure the Taliban to reintegrate and reconcile, and make possible security transition to the Afghans in accordance with our Lisbon commitments.

Such statements are indeed welcome.

I also note from the minister that he is committing Australian forces, with which the coalition agrees in terms of transition, to Duntroon in the desert, which I still believe is the preferred thing to call it rather than Sandhurst in the sand, and to the school of gunnery, which is great, as well as a future role for our special operations as long as the mandate is acceptable to the nation—all of which the coalition accepts. Minister, you have made no comment on the current over 150 embedded ostensibly staff officers within the various joint headquarters. I gather US forces will retain some headquarter element and there may be an opportunity for Australian military forces to retain some military officers embedded at that headquarter level—again, which the coalition would support. It would be good to get an idea at what level and at what ranks and at what positions the Australian military could expect to have some of their officers and other ranks within that embedded force.

I note the support for a long-term partnership within Afghanistan to ensure that Afghanistan can no longer return to being a place where terrorism is supported, aided, abetted, indoctrinated and given freedom of action. Again, the coalition supports a long-term partnership. We acknowledge the $100 million per annum starting in 2015. We were somewhat interested to see that this number is significantly higher compared with the majority of other European nations, especially when we factor GDP into the equation—the percentage of GDP that other nations have provided. I think Australia can be very proud that as a nation we are so generous in our support, not only to the US alliance in providing such a level of funding but to NATO as a whole.

We also note that aid will run or increase from $165 million to $250 million by 2015-16, as announced on 20 May 2012. Minister, last time we spoke, a week or two ago, the coalition expressed its profound disappointment in the budget, especially in the $5½ billion worth of cuts to Defence. We acknowledge and we accept your statements and the statements of senior military officers that this will have no impact on current defence support to current operations and we accept that. However, as we look forward to a long-term partnership in transition, we see that elements of Australian military forces, ostensibly special forces, may well have a commitment role up to the end of the decade—again, something which the Prime Minister has announced in this House and the coalition has supported.

If that is the case, the question is what impact will these defence cuts have on our future military capability and our future military operations post-2014, acknowledging and accepting at face value the commanders' and the minister's judgment that the current cuts will have no impact on current military operations? I therefore ask, Minister, if you could get back to the House with your advice as to what impact the current cuts will have on future combat capability. I refer you to Chief of Army General Morrison's message dated 9 May 2012, sent to all commanders and RSMs, where he lists in significant detail the cuts Army will have to make as a direct consequence of the budget. In fact, in his opening paragraph he said:

It is important that you understand the scale of the ADF's budgetary reductions to help you put into context the decisions that have been made.

So, Minister, if you could provide some update on the following delayed projects and what impact they may have on future conduct capability, accepting current combat capability is fine: JP 2097 Phase IB—REDFIN Special Operations Capability, the replacement special operations vehicles and battle management system, which has slipped at least one year; JP 129 Phase 3—the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Shadow replacement or upgrade, which has slipped one year; LAND 125 Phase 3 Charlie—Soldier Enhancement Version 2 or enhancing the F88's lethality, which, again, has slipped; LAND 125 Phase 4—the Integrated Soldier System Version 3, next generation of the soldier combat system covering lethality, survivability, mobility and command and control; JP 154 Phase 2—the counter IED, or improvised explosive device, force protection ECM and the weapons technical intelligence capability; and, lastly, JP 3011 Phase 1—the non-lethal weapons enhancing the ADF's non-lethal capabilities.

I note the minister's update in terms of civilian casualties and the work that has been done to ensure that civilian casualties are investigated where they occur. I think it is important, though, for the House to understand the professionalism of our soldiers, which the minister has of course spoken of. Having spoken to many soldiers in Afghanistan over my three visits there, and having known many of their commanders, I know we are faced at times on combat operations with civilians being in the middle. I know as a statement of fact that when civilians are caught in the crossfire Australian soldiers cease shooting. Our enemy does not, and there lies the substantive difference between our force and the enemy we fight. Every effort is made to ensure that there are as few civilian casualties as possible—every effort. In terms of civilians in the battlefield, which is an everyday occurrence, their place in the battlefield ensures that our combat capability cannot be maximised because we do not fire into civilian compounds. We cease firing when civilians are engaged in the middle ground or in the way but our enemy forces do not. I thank the minister for his update on civilian casualties. I remind the House of the professionalism of our forces and the work they do every day to ensure civilians are not harmed and are not impacted. I remind them that the enemy we face has—to their shame—no problem firing at our troops where there are civilians in the middle. I thank the minister for his brief on the ADFA issues and the ADFIS issues and for his update to the House in that respect. I request the minister to drop the coalition a confidential line on the nature of those ADFIS issues and where they are, to give us an idea from a personnel point of view.

I note the minister's update on combat fatality reports. I note that all inquiry officer reports in combat deaths that occurred in 2010 have been completed. The families of those personnel killed in action have been briefed on the outcomes of those inquiries. I understand some of those reports have been made public and some have not been, and the coalition supports the minister's absolute discretion in determining what is appropriate in those circumstances. I agree with the minister that the families' wishes with regard to any public release are paramount and should always be highly in consideration.

I note that there are still four incidences outstanding from 2011, and the families of those ADF personnel killed in action may not have been briefed as a result of those actions. I acknowledge the minister will update the House as soon as practical on the outcomes of those inquiries. We all understand that it is important that families know in as much detail as possible the circumstances around how their loved ones gave their lives for the nation, but again I urge the minister to ensure the appropriate resources are provided to finalise these inquiries. Some of these four may have been waiting up to 300 days—10 or 12 months. Reports on inquires into US service personnel take an average of two months to complete. The four outstanding are taking up to 10 to 12 months.

It is important, as we finalise the discussion of the update on Afghanistan and the coalition's response, that I join the minister in acknowledging our men and women and what they are doing. The government and the opposition were represented yesterday when the elements of MTF-5—which is the base force surrounding the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment—and all of the enablers from 15 different units had their parade at Enoggera Barracks as family and friends wished them well as they went. It is important to know that something like 900 troops from MTF-5, based around the 3rd Battalion, will transition over the current months into Afghanistan for their six-month tour of duty.

I wish Lieutenant Colonel Trent Scott, a good colleague of mine whom I joined with in 1988, and the men and women of the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and all the enabling forces that go with MTF-5, the very best in what they do. I know Australians can be proud of what they will do. They will fight hard. They will ask no quarter and they will give none. However, they will show great compassion. They will show great leadership on the field. They will respect the Afghans with whom they fight and those whom they fight against, and they will do our nation proud. Minister, thank you again for your commitment in keeping the House up to date.

See this speech in context