Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add my comments to the debate on the situation in East Timor, particularly as I had the opportunity to visit there during the last deployment of our troops on the first parliamentary delegation from Australia to East Timor. At the time, I was lobbied to have our troops remain for a littler longer under the umbrella of the United Nations.

I do not know why we changed the deployment by scaling down our involvement in East Timor. In fact, I think it was probably the decision of the Australian government that the United Nations brought its engagement and deployment to an end. Now we have a situation much like the Solomons. Australia took a short-term decision mainly, it seems, because of the commitment of troops in another place, some distance from Australia—a place which we really have little interest in except that we were there doing a boasting exercise for the US President.

We have pulled out too early and, as in other areas, that has caused great anguish and worry for the community, particularly as the tools of democracy are still being put into place. There have been a number of divisions in that community, which are still being fixed. We knew that the tensions were still there and that something would happen if support was withdrawn from those who were trying to kick-start the economy and deal with shortages, unemployment and many other problems facing the new nation. This was borne out by the articles run in the press during May, in which many commentators queried Canberra’s level of awareness and preparedness for the eventuality of a breakdown of the government in Dili.

One of my friends is working over in East Timor, and I have been following the day-to-day events through his first-hand view. It worried me that it seems there is little knowledge as to what is really behind this unrest. None of the commentators has really put up a clear answer, and it has been put down to inexperience and lack of accountability. There is a strong feeling of resentment against Prime Minister Alkatiri. Today we have heard that he has been offered an ultimatum to resign because of allegations of violence and recruitment of a death squad. As yet, the allegations are unproven, and they will continue to add to the unrest until resolved. Both the president and other members of the government have asked for further assistance. There is still a need for Australia, along with the UN, to help the young nation move forward. It is important that Australia lends a hand, but through a multinational force under the United Nations.

I agree with some commentators that there is an urgent need to develop more effective internationally or regionally agreed structures of post-conflict reconstruction that entail some form of mentoring arrangements for new independent states. They should include accountability for budgets and the security of external auditors so that we can see how those states are developing, and so they can see for themselves and make their own judgments. We cannot afford to fail again, and nor can East Timor. I do not think we particularly need to send troops. I am not even sure there needs to be armed militia at this stage. We should be training police and bureaucrats to help put the nation on a decent economic footing.

Investment needs to be encouraged to return. A strong government system is also needed to ensure that East Timorese rights are upheld. I note that Tasmania has dispatched 12 police officers for 100 days to help towards the restoration of law and order and assist with training both police and emergency services personnel. Some of them were there six years ago and remember their service fondly.

Australians really do like the East Timorese people and would like to help them gain proper independence. But we cannot be the entire solution, lest we become part of the problem. Removing the UN peacekeepers’ presence, under which Australia had a part, has meant that thousands of people have left their homes, many because their houses have been burnt and ransacked. I understand that some 100,000 people in and around Dili have sought shelter in churches, orphanages and other reasonably secure compounds, while others are just camping out in open grounds and areas.

I would like to put on record the views of someone who has spent a number of years in Dili and who has worked for the UN from time to time, working with the redevelopment of other Third World countries. His view is interesting. He says:

I believe that the East Timor’s government—including much credit due to Alkitiri—has acted strongly in a number of ways in tackling the important issues of human survival and development. Health and education indicators have been improving at a very good rate. Remember the utter vacuum that it inherited. They’ve had just four years so far; Australia and the USA even opposed an extension of the UN Mission after just three years of independence!

Of course the Timorese Government achieved much because of lots of help from others, but so what? The Timorese people suffered because of the silence of lots of others for a much longer period. The Fretilin Government has been committed to development; and any blame for any failure also has to be shared. It sounds like the international community is too ready to take the praise for the successes, but to attribute all the blame to the government.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the current leadership has made utterly unacceptable errors in the latest unrest, and are so much a part of the problem they can’t conceivably be part of the solution (although Xanana’s—

that is, the president’s—

likely proposed government of national unity or alternative transitional measures through to next year’s national elections will probably allocate them current leadership roles as a means of bringing the different forces together).

Evidence of the capacity of areas of the government is on show. For example, the continued functioning of the police and health services and schools in the districts where things are calmer, and the roles being played by government in the current humanitarian effort. Of course, there’s been panic among people desperate to get food from the warehouses, but there’s more evidence of civil order in food distribution (I know it’s not great stuff for TV). I watched food distribution in one of the camps yesterday afternoon: piles of boxes of water, piles of sacks of rice, lots of people queued waiting to have their names ticked off a list to be handed their rations. All handled calmly by a couple of people from the main humanitarian relief team, and several designated Timorese guys living in the camp who diligently maintain the lists for the team.

The statements by Tim Costello when he returned to Australia were insulting to many people working in humanitarian relief. Let me describe the situation: an Inter-Agency Humanitarian Assistance Group has been established. It comprises the Timorese government (in a coordinating role, under Labour and Community Reinsertion Minister Arsenio Bano), seven UN agencies (WHO, UNICEF etc), and five international NGOs (Oxfam, Plan International, HealthNet, Red Cross and Care). I’m told World Vision was invited to join the effort.

These various agencies are cooperating in their coverage of food distribution and health and sanitation monitoring across all camps. Apparently World Vision is doing the same. According to Tim Costello on ABC’s Lateline the other night, “There’s only about three or four aid agencies still functioning. The UN’s gone, many other aid agencies, because of the security situation have gone.”  I’m not involved in any of this, so I don’t mind saying it has not gone down too well with many people working long hours.

It’s hard to feel sympathetic with his calls for stretched Australian military forces to provide “double cover”. As I said yesterday, the Australian troops are not only securing and protecting loads of essential utilities, and restoring order in the face of violence springing up in all sorts of places, but ensuring safety to the political leadership, UN facilities and officers, and the joint humanitarian efforts in the field (there are lots of camps in Dili).

The important issue here is that there’s an opportunity for international agencies to not repeat the errors of the past. Cooperation is essential. So I see a few vehicles driving around flying their own flags and others wanting to ensure their own “brand recognition” for TV viewers back home. Of course UN agencies have also been under pressure from their head offices to get good footage for impressing potential donors. To their credit, they’re generally focusing on what’s necessary on the ground at present.

Listening to people displaced and impacted by all this is also essential. Sitting and listening to various people in the camp yesterday afternoon was more informative than any UN briefing I’ve been to in the past few days. Groups can’t just come in and start doing their thing or operate in relative isolation from others; this is a lesson which apparently has to be learnt over and over again.

This is one of the positive outcomes I hope arises from the current tragedy. East Timor can be described as a “failed state” in the sense that everyone, in some way, has failed it. Are they going to fail it again? What lessons have the different agencies learnt?

I still hear people in different agencies (UN, international NGOs, etc) talking as if they need to get back to what they were doing before, or do what they were doing but with more resources. Stop! From now on it has to be different. There’s been too much of importing “solutions”, of paternalistic “development”; of wasting donor resources due to inexperienced “advisers” or forgetting to focus on outcomes.

Fortunately, there are now many people in the Timorese Administration who can and must be more assertive about what is needed as East Timor does what it couldn’t do post-1999: to undertake “emergency” and “development” roles side-by-side rather than the latter being viewed as a logical successor to the former. Despite the destruction and current dejection of the national psyche, the foundations for doing so continue to survive. The biggest challenge is to those agencies, UN and others alike, which continue to operate here: how are you going to change this time around? And when the dust settles, it will be more than the Timorese leadership that will have some questions to answer.

This position is not in isolation and I believe we have a responsibility to listen to the views of those on the ground attempting to deal with the chaos rather than the armchair politicians directing operations from afar. Many Australians are going over there to help, we need to make sure they are supported and safe, so whatever is decided by this Government, it should be in the interests first of East Timor and secondly with the safety of all those who are helping out in mind.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are here today to discuss the motion with respect to the commitment of troops to East Timor. I need to make it clear that I support this deployment, as does the opposition as a whole. There is no doubt that security in East Timor and our doing all we can as a neighbour to maintain East Timor as a viable state should be a priority for the Australian government and Australian foreign policy. This is therefore a deployment that is supported by both sides of politics on a bipartisan basis.

The recent unfolding events in East Timor are a major concern to all of us. We remember our hope some years ago with the first deployment to East Timor that we would be seeing the birth of a successful new nation, the newest nation in the world, in a situation where it would go forth and prosper. I think we are all filled with disappointment at what has unfolded in recent times, and the looting, the killing, the violence on the streets of Dili and elsewhere in East Timor are a cause of major concern. There is no doubt, first up, that all sides of politics support the need for this deployment.

Also it needs to be stated clearly again, I think: all sides of politics have a tremendous amount of respect for our defence forces—for their professionalism, their capacity and their ability. They will do us proud and they will get the job done as they have done so many times before. There is no doubt that when they have served overseas Australian forces have always served with distinction and have always shown themselves to have a particular capacity, especially in operations like peacekeeping, to achieve the objectives of the operations in a manner which brings credit upon all concerned.

I turn to the question of what is happening now with Operation Astute, as this operation is called, where approximately 2,680 ADF personnel are deployed. I go to the question of the way those forces are being treated in a formal sense by the government and what that means with respect to both recognition for what they are doing and also remuneration and other benefits for what they have been doing or are doing. What is different about East Timor now from East Timor back around 1999 is, I guess, still to be clearly understood. There is certainly an argument that the sorts of circumstances that our forces are facing in East Timor are remarkably similar to the circumstances of the earlier deployment, and therefore you have got to ask yourself why it is not being treated under the various acts as warlike. Back at the time of the original deployment the then Minister for Defence, John Moore, said:

The peace enforcement nature of this mission demands that we recognise the conditions of the deployment and the roles our personnel will perform.

That is why the government has acted to significantly increase the package of allowances compared with other recent deployments.

Certainly at that time there was recognition by government, and I think all concerned, that the nature of the particular circumstances around their deployment in East Timor deserved recognition as warlike. When we go to the question of what we are dealing with now in terms of the unpredictability of the violence around Dili you have got to ask: why not now? And that is an answer which I think the government has not properly been able to come to terms with.

The government’s statements with respect to this issue also raise concerns about the fact that there is no doubt that they have said, and made a point of saying, on the record that they see this as being a dangerous and risky deployment. The Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 25 May said:

It is always a solemn responsibility of any government to place the men and women who defend our country in danger. This is a dangerous mission and a dangerous situation and we must not walk away from the possibility that casualties could be suffered by the forces that will go to East Timor.

The defence minister, again on 25 May in the House, said:

We know that this is going to be a particularly dangerous mission ... the situation in East Timor is very unstable, it is very dangerous and there are also incidents occurring as the day progresses which give no reason to believe that it is likely to improve in the foreseeable future.

The foreign minister, Mr Downer, again on the same day in the House, said:

... the security situation as of last we have heard in Dili is bad. We are very concerned about the security situation on the ground and there are reports of shootings, so there is a good deal of danger there.

In these circumstances it seems to me clear that the government needs to revisit this decision and, certainly, look to the fact that there is a serious issue with regard to the way we treat our forces in East Timor.

On the issue of whether service in Dili should be treated as warlike service, the national president of the Australian Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Veterans Association, Paul Copeland, is on record in the affirmative as saying:

When these troops arrived in East Timor there was no law. I think they should have been on warlike service from the beginning and that could have been reviewed it a little bit later down the track.

When we look to the question of the way this is being treated, we also, I think, have to take into account the views of the families of the service people who are serving—the circumstances and views that they have with respect to this matter. Just to give you some idea of the sorts of concerns it is raising around Defence Force families, I will quote from an article in the Age. When the minister was in Dili and meeting with members of the Defence Force, he was asked a question by one of the soldiers about the classification of ‘warlike’ and whether it would change ‘with the death of one of us’. I think that highlights the fact that, in the mind of any soldier involved in the deployment, there is that awareness of risk. They are concerned about what might happen and the fact that they are dealing in an area where, as I said, even by the admission of the current head of the mission over there, they do not think they will ever get all of the weapons that are out there in the community, and where there is an incredibly dangerous set of situations.

I mentioned the issue of families and their views. An article from the Sunday Herald Sun reads:

One mother of a soldier serving in Dili emailed John Howard direct: “I am writing to express my dismay at the shameful decision you have taken to only pay our army men and women in East Timor a peacekeeper daily pay rate, on what you accurately termed a ‘dangerous mission in a dangerous situation’. For you not to pay them what they are due is an insult, and a bewildering disgrace. They are in danger. Can you now make a public statement otherwise?”

…     …         …

Another angry family member singled out Dr Nelson. “If you’re carrying around a pack and a machine-gun, then are you not in a warlike situation? ... This man should now know that young people will not join the defence forces to be treated like rubbish and gun fodder by someone whose take-home pay is in the region of $150,000 a year.”

Of course, we know that Dr Nelson’s pay is considerably more than that. This has real implications for members of the Defence Force with respect to what their entitlements are. There is no doubt that it is therefore something that needs to be taken into consideration. When you deal with the armed forces and with veterans, recognition is a very important part of the way they view their service. That is understandable because, when your life is on the line, you need to be in a situation where the serious nature of what you are endeavouring to do for your country is understood.

When we look at some of the pay rates et cetera which relate to this area, there is no doubt that there is a significant financial aspect to this, too. It is one of the issues we have to address as a country. If we do not properly recognise what our defence forces do, we will continue to have difficulty around recruitment and retention of our armed forces. There is no doubt that, when decisions like this are taken—decisions which certainly on the face of it look to be unfair and unjust—it sends a message not only to serving defence people but also to those who might be interested in or considering the question of a career in the armed forces. It sends out a message that is not constructive towards a situation where they would actively consider or maintain that career, and that is something I think the government needs to keep in mind. It has implications for pay rates, as I said earlier. It also has implications from the point of view of medals and recognition, and implications in terms of entitlements as veterans down the track, should they be dealing with a range of difficulties which may well relate to their former service.

So the decision from the minister in this case needs to be looked at. I know it has been defended on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief of the Defence Force. He has also related it back to decisions taken at cabinet level in the previous government. Again, that is just not good enough. Recently the government, quite rightly, reconsidered the question of how they handled the issue of Rwanda and the treatment of Rwanda veterans. That was in response to Labor taking up the issue of Rwandan veterans and the fact that their service in that particular operation was not being treated as warlike. That decision had initially been taken by a Labor government. As I have said on the record, I believe that decision was wrong. I can understand why it was taken at that time, but it needed to be revisited because the full nature of what occurred in the deployment in Rwanda was not properly understood. That led to the issue being revisited, and the government, to their credit, came to the party earlier this year and changed the way that particular operation was treated. I know from talking to Rwandan veterans that that has been very important to them. It is not only a question of money; it is not only a question of recognition. It is a question of trying to get some sort of understanding within the community about what they went through—an understanding for themselves, for their families and friends, and for the broader community.

When we look at what is happening in East Timor compared with the situation in Rwanda, the fact is that we are looking at similar events occurring. The scale of what occurred in Rwanda was certainly horrific; there is no doubt about that. But when we look at some of the incident reports that have come out from East Timor there is no doubt some terrible things have been occurring there too. So the government need to revisit this decision, to look at it again, because they have taken the wrong decision on this occasion. It ought to be reviewed on the specifics of what has occurred in Dili, with proper consideration of what our forces have been facing, and the circumstances they may continue to face into the future. If the decision needs to be reviewed again down the track then it should be, but we should be erring on the side of support for our troops in these circumstances to make sure that they get a fair deal. At a time when we are having trouble holding our Defence Force to the level we require, when we are having trouble recruiting to the force, we need to realise that decisions such as this send signals which are not helpful in maintaining a viable force.

The sort of public comment that has occurred about this also makes it clear that this is not a popular decision by the government and it is something that they need to reconsider. I have had drawn to my attention an article in the Sunday Times by Liam Bartlett headed ‘Obscene twist to blood money’. I will briefly quote from that article and its key points:

So, what’s the difference between Rwanda and East Timor? Dili has seen plenty of machetes on the streets, rebels with guns, refugee camps, looters who like to play with fire, and a high degree of difficulty trying to tell the good guys from the bad.

If anything, the troops in Timor have been granted tougher rules of engagement that their counterparts in Rwanda who had to stand by idly and witness shocking atrocities.

But that only strengthens the argument that East Timor is a volatile scenario that requires armed soldiers to do dangerous work.

…       …            …

This senior triumvirate of government, by their own admission, sent soldiers to a foreign country that could produce “casualties” and now they want to call it “non-warlike”. Are we really that gullible?

If it was, and is, truly non-warlike, why didn’t these three form a parliamentary delegation and sort it out over a tropical banquet with Messrs Alkitiri, Horta, Gusmao and Reinado?

A Herald-Sun editorial, headed ‘Timor diggers deserve better’, said:

It took a single Digger to shoot down the argument of Defence Minister Brendan Nelson that East Timor service was not “warlike”.

“The classification warlike—would that change with the death of one of us?” the soldier asked the minister.

Dr Nelson left East Timor within a day. But the Diggers must stay to try to quell chaotic attacks by armed gangs as easterners and westerners feud.

The Diggers have confiscated most guns from these gangs, which still carry machetes, as well as disarming most of the split East Timor defence and police forces.

PM John Howard said of our troops, “their lives are on the line” in a “dangerous” operation he compared to 1999—but the Defence Department thinks otherwise.

The bureaucratic decision our 2600 Diggers are not on “warlike” service comes as the UN estimates the number of killings to have been much higher than so far realised.

The UN has a full inquiry into the Alkatiri Government’s role in the atrocity in which 12 surrendering rebel policemen were gunned down.

Our Diggers will receive a tax-free allowance of $78.60 a day compared to $150 in Iraq or Afghanistan.

They must serve overseas for 91 days before their income is tax-free.

But this is more about honour.

Denial of warlike service denies them the Australian Active Service Medal and access to the Gold Card and earlier service pensions when they are older.

This has happened before. About 150 Australian Army trainers are still fighting for just recognition for “warlike service” from when they trained the East Timorese troops from 2001. The Defence Department ordered them to hand back UN honours.

So it is hard not to conclude their successors in East Timor are the next victims of penny-pinching bureaucracy.

No wonder another Digger asked Dr Nelson what was happening with defence force retention problems.

I think that highlights the issues here. The government needs to look at this again. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Wakelin) adjourned.