Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Army is one of our nation's most revered institutions. It has a proud and distinguished history. It is an institution shaped and tempered by the harsh realities of the battlefield. Indeed, the Army has been refined by war over the past century. The crucible of combat has shown that our soldiers are capable of great courage and bravery under fire. It has also shown that we can do great wrong on the battlefield. That is why the Brereton report was initiated by the former coalition government. We had to give account of the alleged wrongs committed by a small minority of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The review found credible information that grievous wrong had been committed by some of our troops, and we've since had a public reckoning that has laid bare these troubling allegations for the world to see. The Deputy Prime Minister has covered this ground already, and I don't intend to repeat him.

But today I do want to say that it is important that we learn from this tragic and bitter chapter in our military history, and I'm encouraged by the Chief of Army's latest capstone document, The Australian Army contribution to the National Defence Strategy 2024, released last week. This is a document that will guide the Army out of this valley under his leadership. It says this:

There are certain aspects of war that never change.

War is fought among humans for political ends.

War is brutally violent and uncompromising.

War is unpredictable, and impossible to control.

War is a contest of wills.

Wars end when the human will to fight runs out.

People live on the land, and wars often begin and end on the land.

I'm heartened by this intellectual clarity about war and his focus on Army's core business, for if we neglect the reality of war then we risk treating war like any other public policy endeavour, ignoring the unique moral and ethical challenges it imposes on people.

The document goes on to say:

Our profession is dangerous and demanding. The battlefield is the most physically, intellectually and morally demanding of environments. It challenges humanity to its core. It demands nothing less than the highest professional standards.

It reminds us in this House and in the senior ranks of the Australian Defence Force that we have a special obligation to our soldiers, sailors and aviators when we send them to war—that we not only send them out to battle for the right reasons but that we also have a special obligation to remain no less engaged in the conduct of war once it has commenced. It is violent and uncontrollable, and that means we can't switch off and offer only platitudes in this place. That means we must ask the hard questions, we must have debates and we must adjust policy and strategy as the situation changes. And we must insist on accountability from those in the heat of battle as well as from those directing policy in Canberra. Our soldiers must tell the truth, and those in leadership must seek it out. If both our soldiers and our leaders had done so, we might not be in this place today. But here we are, and it has been a tough reckoning, and this week in particular has been a tough reckoning. The royal commission report has hit us hard, and the formal closure of the Afghanistan inquiry report will also be tough for many people.

The Brereton inquiry was painful, as it unearthed painful truths about some of our conduct in the Afghan war. Reputations, both personal and institutional, have been damaged. The cost of war has been doubled and tripled as we've retraced painful moments. But it was necessary, for we believe in accountability and making things right when we uncover wrongdoing. To that end I'd like to acknowledge Justice Brereton and his team for their work. I'd like to also acknowledge the witnesses who struggled through painful testimony, trauma and fractured friendships to tell the truth. Theirs is a special kind of moral courage, and I want to note that in this House. I'd also like to acknowledge the many families who neither set foot in Afghanistan nor participated in an inquiry interview but carried the emotional and psychological burdens of service and were there to comfort their loved ones. The toll on families has been tremendous, and we must recognise that as we begin our journey out of the valley.

I'd like to say a few things today. The first thing is on command accountability. My one point of disagreement with the Brereton report is on how far it reaches up the chain in assigning responsibility. I believe that our troops were let down by a lack of moral courage that went up the chain of command all the way to Canberra, including in this House. I want to be clear: those who are alleged to have shed innocent blood are alone responsible for that. I do not say this to absolve or condemn anyone, but those in the chain of command who saw the post-mission slide decks with the kill counts and pictures of dead individuals had an obligation to ask questions. From Tarin Kot, Kabul and Kandahar to Dubai and Canberra, those in the chain of command should have asked more questions; some may well have done that. But an earlier intervention by our political and strategic leadership may have avoided much of the pain that people have experienced in Afghanistan and through this lengthy process. My point is that leadership matters, and it starts with a realistic appreciation of the nature of war. I'm glad that the Chief of Army understands this and is leading our troops with this reality in focus.

My second point is on trust. Trust needs to be rebuilt both up and down the chain. It is the foundation of the sacred compact between the Army, the Australian people and our government. It was broken and needs to be restored. The Chief of Army has made this clear. Trust also needs to be rebuilt down the chain. There were many contradictions in Australian policy that our troops had to reconcile on the ground in Afghanistan, often in morally ambiguous and demanding situations—and I say this with direct experience. It was not easy partnering with an Afghan warlord and his personal band of warriors. We did not have aligned values or a moral framework that we shared, but we had to make our policy objectives work as best we could. That had a moral impact on people at the tip of the spear. It was not easy planning combat missions where we had to make choices about whether we took our medic or EODs on the job, because of partner ratios that were imposed upon us by policymakers. It meant that, when we were determining who came on the helicopter, I had to drop off essential people in order to meet the policy objectives from our government. We assumed the operational risk and we made it work, but it is a reminder that war is not clean nor coherent, even though it might look that way in Canberra, from this House or over at Russell.

Again, I want to make clear that none of this context absolves those facing allegations of grievous misconduct. Those allegations will be tested by the Office of the Special Investigator and in our courts. We must restore trust with our fighting men and women by ensuring that we do better the next time we go to war, by staying engaged, by asking the right questions and by adjusting our policy and strategy as required. We owe that to those who are willing to risk their lives defending the nation.

My final point is on readiness. We must now march out of this valley and stand ready for the next challenge. To quote the Chief of Army once more:

We are a fighting force, but we fight only to defend Australia and its interests. We seek no glory in combat. But every soldier trains to be an expert at it. There is no substitute for victory in warfare, and therefore we strive to be able to fracture and defeat the will and cohesion of those who seek to do our nation harm.

That is the mission for Army, and it's crystal clear.

We are living in a dangerous world, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said multiple times. War could come sooner than we imagine. The Middle East and Europe remind us of this harsh reality. That's why we cannot allow this chapter to denude us of our fighting power or morale. We've been accountable for the wrongs that we've done in Afghanistan, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and now we must look to the next ridge line.

That's why the opposition leader and I conducted command reform at the Special Air Service Regiment in 2021. The regiment has grown in capabilities and size since 1964. The span of command and assets involved in special operations made it clear that the commanding officer should be a full colonel rather than a lieutenant-colonel, and AUKUS and the surge of strategic assets into Perth has validated this approach. It was also a reform made specifically in the context of the Brereton findings. We wanted to see a more senior officer with greater experience and knowledge commanding the SAS. There is no place for exceptionalism, and broader exposure to the ADF and government will give us more commanding officers aligned with our strategic leadership and perhaps avoiding the cultural failings of the period in question. I want to add that the regiment celebrated its 60th anniversary over the weekend. I was not in attendance, but I have heard good reports, and I have confidence in the current commanding officer and also in the individual who will replace him, as I know the Deputy Prime Minister does.

Finally, I thank all the men and women serving in uniform today. I thank the 26,000 Australians who served in Afghanistan. I particularly honour the veterans who carry the physical and emotional and psychological scars of combat. I acknowledge their families. We look forward to working together on the next challenge, because we must be ready and we cannot fail.

See this speech in context