Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion to take note of the statement by the Prime Minister regarding the deployment of additional Australian troops to Afghanistan. This statement was supported by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives last Wednesday.

Before noting the additional deployment that was spoken of in that statement, I pay tribute to those troops who have already been deployed. A number have been deployed not only from the 1st Brigade in Darwin but also from your own area, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, as I understand it. I know that you have also participated in a number of farewells for the troops who have been deployed to Afghanistan.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Barton aware that some troops have been injured today?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I have been briefed on that. We are waiting for the full details on that, but we express our appreciation and we recognise the contribution of our troops around the globe.

Currently in Afghanistan there are approximately 240 personnel in the special forces task group, made up of SAS members, commandos, an incident response regiment and also logistics personnel. They are supported in their operations by two Chinook helicopters from the 5th Aviation Regiment. That group—consisting of approximately 110 personnel involved in air crew, maintenance and support—is doing a tremendous job already in Iraq in particularly trying and increasingly dangerous circumstances. The level of violence in Afghanistan increases as a result of a number of factors, including the climate. As I understand it, moving into the warmer months is itself a cause for enhanced violence. There are other factors that I will refer to briefly.

As I indicated, I have had the opportunity of farewelling several deployments to Afghanistan. One of those occasions was in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, where I met up with you there. To see the obvious emotion of not only the troops who were leaving but also their friends and their families is itself a moving experience. But you appreciate what those troops are doing for their country and indeed for the prospects of those who live in Afghanistan: giving them the prospect of a better life is vitally important. You also appreciate the impact on their families and the tremendous contribution that the families of our troops make to the missions undertaken by our soldiers.

The reality is Afghanistan and the events that unfold in Afghanistan are vitally important to our regional security. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, Afghanistan is, if you like, the central office of the primary terrorist organisations of al-Qaeda, working in cahoots with the Taliban. There is no doubt that that is, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, terror central.

It is probably the general region where Osama bin Laden is located, perhaps in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no doubt that Afghanistan has provided a training base for terrorists in South-East Asia; several people charged with terrorism offences in Australia have also been trained in Afghanistan. In other words, Afghanistan has been, and clearly has been proven to have been, a base for international terrorism.

It is also the centre of a massive opium crop valued at in the order of $3 billion a year, and that crop finances criminal, insurgent and terrorist activity generally in Afghanistan, as well as the fundamentalist organisations who ply the trade in order to raise funds. Unquestionably, it is also being used to fund terrorist organisations in the South-East Asian region. As well as the likelihood of the opium and its ultimate product, heroin, ending up on the streets of our cities and other cities in the world, the revenue from that atrocious trade is unquestionably being used to support terrorist networks around the globe, in particular in the South-East Asian region. So our troops have been engaged in a vitally important exercise.

Their numbers, as was announced last Wednesday, are appropriately going to be increased. A reconstruction task force will be deployed. Originally, it was intended that there would be about 240 personnel as part of that reconstruction task force. Approximately half of those would have been engineers, as well as support from a company of infantry and a light armoured company group. In view of the escalating violence in Afghanistan, the opposition supported the announcement of the additional troop deployment made last Wednesday by the Prime Minister. There will be an additional 30 troops with the regional task force and there will be an additional company group of approximately 120 personnel to provide enhanced security. We welcome that deployment. All we would say is that, in view of the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, we would obviously like to see that security detachment put in place before the reconstruction team is deployed there.

It is unquestionably a dangerous environment. As I have indicated, there are climatic conditions involved. Just as the expression in the United States regarding the warning of an Indian summer when there were warm days came about through the likelihood of an Indian attack, the reality is that that seems to be the situation in Afghanistan—the violence increases during the warmer summer months; in the colder periods it decreases as the groupings move back to their mountain hide-outs. So climatic conditions can increase the violence. Indeed, as a United Nations report indicated recently, so too has the opium trade that has continued to flourish, and that is funding so much of the activity of insurgents—insurgents who are motivated by their political ideology, indeed fanaticism, as well as criminal groups who are themselves wanting to maintain their ability to continue to make profits from the evil opium trade.

In Afghanistan there is a mix of violence from those political elements as well as from the criminal elements, and that is a very dangerous cocktail and a very dangerous environment for our troops to be deployed in. Having said that, and for those reasons, we fully support the additional troops that the government has announced. We note that the government has announced that it will review the troop deployment, the nature of the troop deployment and the size of the troop deployment in approximately six months time. That is appropriate. Indeed, it may be necessary before then to review whether that deployment is adequate. Certainly, from the opposition’s point of view, as the Leader of the Opposition said, if it is necessary to supplement that deployment with additional resources, additional troops or additional equipment then the opposition will be fully supportive of that.

In that context, as we understand it, the Chinook helicopters will currently be deployed until about April next year. Again, we call on the government to examine whether that deployment of the Chinook helicopters should be continued beyond that time and possibly enhanced. Helicopter support is vitally important to the security of our troops on the ground in terms of surveillance, in terms of backup and in terms of medical evacuation. That is an area in particular where we know the demands on our aviation regiment, but the reality is that they provide a particularly vital resource for our troops in Afghanistan and we ask the government to look at continuing that deployment beyond April next year.

There have been concerns expressed in the media about both the integrity and the quality of the Afghani government. They are certainly issues to look at. But the reality is that we cannot ignore the plight of the Afghani people, for the security reasons that I have mentioned but also simply from the point of view of their own security. What they are confronting currently is a situation literally where what you would describe as bandits, standover people, are using extreme violence to enter towns and villages and, through the threat of violence and the actual use of violence or summary executions, obtain the subservience of those in the villages to their will. You cannot allow that situation to occur.

What our troops have done already and continue to do is protect ordinary people from the threat of that ruthless violence. That is something that we cannot ignore. Nor can we ignore the fact that the evidence is clear: Afghanistan, as I have indicated, is clearly a base of terrorist activity, with the opium trade and the financing and training of terrorist activity. It is not, and it was not when the United Nations supported activity in Afghanistan, based on questionable motives; it is clearly a haven for international terrorism.

The Leader of the Opposition in his reply mentioned that it was regrettable that our commitment in Afghanistan was wound back, together with that of the United States and the United Kingdom, as a result of the focus shifting to Iraq. If you recall, the focus shifted to Iraq on the basis of what proved to be failed or false intelligence that there was an imminent threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction, which of course have not been found, whereas from the outset we have constantly been aware of Afghanistan itself being a haven for terrorist activity. There is no question that, had we continued, had these nations generally continued their involvement to the full extent in Afghanistan, we probably would not be seeing the upsurge in violence or the extent of it as a result of the vacuum being filled by the Taliban and the insurgent and criminal groups, who have come into the vacuum to re-establish themselves. It is all very well to talk in terms of the wisdom of hindsight, but perhaps that was a lesson that was too available to ignore.

I have also been asked whether Australia, being a small deployment among, I think, 25 countries providing reconstruction teams, will make a difference. Anyone in doubt should simply look at the experience of New Zealand. They have maintained their reconstruction team from the outset. Not only reports but the evidence indicates that, in the region where they have been deployed, they have made a significant contribution.

In summary, this is an essential deployment not only from the point of view of giving the people of Afghanistan some prospect of a reasonable life in the future but also from the point of view of international security, in particular Australia’s regional security. We indicate our tremendous pride in our troops, and we also recognise their families. We indicate that we are here and available to provide any support that we need to not only to our troops but also to their families.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Prime Minister’s statement to the parliament on the Australian Defence Force commitment to Afghanistan, I want to address, firstly, the global challenge that we have to face during the course of our lifetimes and our time of responsibility in this parliament—most particularly in relation to radical Islam and the civil war which is raging within the Islamic world, a radicalism which some in the Islamic community would seek to spread. Secondly, I want to deal with the core strategic points within the Middle East and the areas where we have to address these problems. Thirdly, I want to deal specifically with Afghanistan and the expanded and renewed commitment which the Prime Minister outlined to the House last week.

The challenge we face at a global level is derived from a notion within certain streams of Islam—Wahhabism and related elements—which seek to bring forth an Islamic caliphate. Their perception is a long-term one. Their objective is an Islamic based, extremist world. But it is to be achieved over 100 years. It is a patient, considered and utterly ruthless approach to bring about a particular concept of how they believe life should be lived. Their primary target, firstly, is the conversion of mainstream Islam to this radicalised version. Their base for much of the last 15 years has been the hills, the mountains and the villages of Afghanistan. When the Taliban was in power in Kabul what we saw was that Afghanistan was a cradle and a nurturing ground for much of this radical Islam. The strategic objective en route to this notion of an Islamic caliphate was to establish a base in one of the primary Islamic countries. That means the destabilisation and the collapse of society as we know it—whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Egypt; whether it is in Pakistan or Indonesia.

The method used to bring about this is twofold: firstly, it is a direct process of destabilisation in these countries themselves, and, secondly, it is about causing the West to disengage—making sure that, from their perspective, whether it is al-Qaeda or associated groups within the tradition of Wahhabism, the West finds it simply too painful to engage with the Islamic world, the West withdraws, the economies of these countries collapse, there is a collapse in the stability of the governments, and, as a result of that, there is a vacuum and that vacuum is filled through a Taliban style regime. That is the mechanism, the process, which they are seeking to use to bring about, firstly, a beachhead. They had one in Afghanistan. It has been lost, but there is still a significant and profoundly important battle being carried out. Secondly, that is the staging point which they wish to achieve en route to a much more dramatic and much more global conflict.

The nature of the conflict is of a civil war within the Islamic world. It is a minority; it is an extreme and absolutely fearless—and I say that unfortunately in the worst sense of the word—minority who have no sense of the meaning of life and who place no value in many cases on their own lives, on those of people of their own faith or on those of people of other faiths. It represents the continuation of a tradition dating back to the most extreme ‘isms’ to have populated our world over the last few centuries, where life can simply be expended.

Having said that, and recognising that some members on the other side understand this—the member for Melbourne Ports has been quite a strong advocate in this fight against global extremism—I think it is incumbent on us to look at what are the strategic battlegrounds that we have to address. In the Middle East today, we range across at least four critical fronts where we have to deal with the support for pluralism, the support for those Arab societies which seek either a secular state or which practise a moderate Islam—in essence, support for mainstream Islam, a religion which has so many positive elements but which allows people of all different persuasions to live life as it should be lived.

The first of those areas is Iraq. I briefly mention Iraq, noting that there have been other debates on this topic, but that has been an inextricable element in the campaign—that to walk away from the battleground there, as some would preach, to disengage, would simply be to allow precisely those forces that are seeking to gain control in Afghanistan to gain control in Iraq. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the original rationale for the conflict in Iraq, I think it is an entirely separate question as to whether that now means that we should disengage as an international society, because my view is that that would be simply disastrous. It is a tough, brutal and long task that we are engaged in. The same people who led an unforgiving regime of human rights atrocities have teamed with those linked with al-Qaeda. So the affiliates of Saddam Hussein have linked with the affiliates of al-Qaeda and together they are seeking to destroy stability, they are seeking to destroy progress towards democracy and they are seeking to make their own people victims as a means of achieving that destabilisation in Iraq. So it would be a human rights nightmare and an abomination to walk away, and it would be a strategic catastrophe, I say with great respect to the House.

I respect the views of those who do not believe that it was appropriate or the right thing to do to topple Saddam Hussein. I respectfully disagree with that view. I think he was the leader of perhaps the worst and most abusive regime with regard to human rights of any in the world over the last 25 years—although he had some stiff competition, I would have to say. That is my view in relation to Iraq.

The second area is in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian Authority. We have deep reservations as a nation about the role played by Hamas—that it fails to recognise Israel’s right to exist. I think it is profoundly important as a key to resolution of the conflict that there is a recognition of Israel’s right to exist. I also think, and I have said publicly, that the only guarantee of security for Israel in the long term is the creation of a two-state solution. I think that is fundamental as we go forward. I think there must be a two-state solution—that it is the right thing for people under the Palestinian Authority and it is the right thing as a long-term, critical and indispensable element of guaranteeing Israel’s security. As somebody who has lived in that country, who speaks the language, I have a deep belief in and support for Israel, but I also disagree profoundly with those who would deny the Palestinian people a homeland in the long term, because that is not a solution. That is simply neither right in principle nor is it a solution to the problem there.

Moving forwards, I note that the third area is the tragedy in southern Lebanon at the moment. Lebanon was the great hope for the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the colonisation of the southern parts of Lebanon by Hezbollah, which have preyed upon a weak state, has meant that area has become a catalyst for conflict. My hope is that it can be stabilised and that the Hezbollah militia can be disarmed. I think that is a critical element in dealing with a solution towards stability in that area. We have to disengage Syria and Iran from support for this militia, but that is a long-term practice. It is a critical part of the fight.

Against all of that background, the crucible for this conflict in many ways has been Afghanistan. That is because that is where the Taliban and al-Qaeda found their roots over the last 15 years, flowing out of—and I confess this—the work of the mujaheddin. They became an illegitimate child thereof. In that context there has been significant progress in terms of the democracy of Afghanistan. What we have seen is real GDP growth of over 12 per cent in the current year. Critically, what we also see is the development of democratic infrastructure. The elements of democratic infrastructure are fundamentally important to giving that country a chance to go forward in the fight to establish its own future.

The role of women, particularly the entry of women into Afghanistan’s parliament and councils, is tremendously important. My understanding is that 68 women were elected to the lower house of the Afghanistani parliament and that they took 27 per cent of available seats, with 121 women in elected provincial councils—all of which was once unthinkable. It was simply unthinkable five years ago that perhaps the most oppressive country in its treatment of women would now be a country with a quarter of its representation coming from women. Similarly, since 2001 2.3 million children under the age of five have been vaccinated against polio, almost eradicating that disease.

These are elements of real progress, but there is a profound fight. That fight comes from the challenge of al-Qaeda and those linked with the former Taliban regime who have a role in much of rural Afghanistan. They are continuing to try—and in some cases they have had success—to take on the international coalition forces, to take on the work of the United Nations and to take on those people who would seek to improve the quality of life there, to establish democracy and ultimately leave Afghanistan to itself. That is our goal: to have a free and functioning Afghanistan. These people who have used, I absolutely acknowledge, in many cases the proceeds of opium and other drug related products to bolster their finances must be stopped.

So against that background Australia plays a critical role. We are a small number in terms of presence on the ground, but there is no doubt that our impact has been significant. There have been many conflicts in which we have been directly engaged. Against that background, what this statement has done is commit Australia to provide 150 additional ADF troops to reinforce the reconstruction task force and provide enhanced force protection on the ground. At present the reconstruction task force is working in Oruzgan province, in southern Afghanistan, on reconstruction and community based projects. Its aim is to build the long-term viability of Afghan communities. It is part of winning the war on the ground, not just through military conflict but, much more importantly, through constructive community development. The reconstruction task force will receive an additional 30 members—and these members will include command, security and protection, engineering, administrative support, and tactical and intelligence services personnel—as well as Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles and Australian light armoured vehicles, or ASLAVs. They will be bolstered by an additional contingent, an infantry company of 120 personnel to provide enhanced force protection—and I have no doubt that some of them will be drawn from your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, from the military bases at Townsville.

They put their lives on the line. They serve for a greater cause. I could not express more strongly my profound respect for the work and courage of the Australian Defence Force. Ultimately, they are engaged in a great global mission. It is a mission that is not without controversy—and that is the beauty of our democracy. But I believe that what occurs in Afghanistan is of profound significance to the four conflicts I have outlined in the Middle East. It is of profound significance in helping to lay the foundations for democracy and openness. Nothing is more important in giving the world a chance to defeat the spectre of radical terrorism—radical Islam—and that is how we truly give ourselves an open way forward.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support Australia’s deployment of troops to Afghanistan and the government’s announcement that it will enhance that deployment. I say that as a person who has fiercely opposed the involvement of Australian troops in the invasion of Iraq and, indeed, opposed the decision of the United States and other allies to be involved in that conflict. The situation in Afghanistan is wholly different from that in the Middle East and, in particular, Iraq. Following the 11 September, 2001 attacks in the United States, the evidence clearly identified the involvement of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s network, based within the country borders of Afghanistan. It became clear in the months that followed that incident that the Afghani government was not going to take any action whatsoever to restrict or bring to account al-Qaeda and those who were clearly responsible for the organisation and execution of the attacks in the United States.

As events subsequently unfolded, it was difficult to disassemble the network that al-Qaeda had established in Afghanistan and the Taliban government that was operating in Kabul. The decision taken, led by the United States, to invade Afghanistan, to change the regime and to seek to bring al-Qaeda operatives to account was supported by both sides of this parliament, by the Australian people and, most tellingly, by an extremely broad coalition of world opinion. It was not just the traditional allies of the United States who supported that decision to invade Afghanistan; it was a decision supported by most countries of the world, including most Islamic countries, who understood that the al-Qaeda network that was operating within Afghanistan as a terrorist organisation was a threat to the good order of nation states everywhere.

It is a pity that the focus of the response to terrorism was then shifted by an incredibly foolish decision taken by the current American administration, encouraged and supported in part by the current Australian government and the Prime Minister, to divert both resources and attention away from that conflict to an extremely ill-advised invasion of Iraq. That has presented us with a range of other problems that are not the province of this debate, but which I would be happy to have the opportunity to comment on at another time. The decision to scale down the commitment in Afghanistan created a vacuum. The government that was established in Kabul was left very much at the mercy of warlords and interest groups.

In the months and years that followed the relocation of American assets from Afghanistan into Iraq, and our decision to remove all of our troops from Afghanistan, that vacuum was filled by a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda network and by drug lords. It is difficult, I think, to separate those two. It is hard to fathom where the line between criminals involved in the poppy trade and terrorists merges or separates. Indeed, I think there is a good deal of overlap. I have no doubt in my own mind that the terrorists are quite happy to finance many of their activities through the poppy trade. Equally, I am quite sure that many of the warlords who operate the poppy fields are more than happy to pay protection money to al-Qaeda to ensure that the authorities are not able to cause them any grief.

As America and Australia turned their eyes off the ball and ignored that problem in Afghanistan, the Europeans stepped up to the mark. In this debate, we should acknowledge the contribution of the NATO allies, in particular in Europe, who provided a substantial number of troops. Rather than be diverted into that foolish conflict in Iraq, countries such as Germany and France committed substantial defence assets to try to maintain peace and order in Afghanistan. Indeed, for a good part of that time, Germany led the mission in Afghanistan. That is not something most newspapers in Australia would report. The general image at the time was that our European colleagues were somehow letting the side down because they did not want to go and invade Iraq. In fact, our European allies were the people who had their eye on the ball when we took ours off. Even our New Zealand friends had their eye on the ball better than we did. They actually maintained a special forces unit in Afghanistan. I believe we maintained one person—a lieutenant colonel. We had one officer in Afghanistan for that period of time, and that was the token gesture by the Australian government.

In April 2004, Kevin Rudd, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, visited Afghanistan. On his return, and as a result of the things he saw and the advice he was given whilst he was in Afghanistan, Labor called for a return of Australian troops to Afghanistan. I am pleased, belatedly, that the Howard government have seen the need to do that and have come on board. This is not the first deployment. We already have a substantial number of SAS troops in Afghanistan. However, this deployment is a substantial boost to that existing deployment.

Afghanistan has had a very troubled history for far too long and the people of Afghanistan have suffered at the hands of a series of repressive and harmful regimes. They deserve to have an opportunity for peace and prosperity, the same as the rest of us on this planet. I hope that the efforts that we are now a part of will help produce that for them, as we endeavour to reduce the influence of the warlords and the terrorists who are camped within that nation.

This deployment has sometimes been referred to as a peacekeeping deployment. Its official title is a reconstruction task force. I think that masks the true situation. Currently, there is not very much that is peaceful about Afghanistan. There is certainly plenty of reconstruction that is needed, but this is not a building site; it is a war zone. It is a war zone that is hot. It is a war zone in which there are, on a daily basis, clashes and killings on both sides of the conflict. We are endorsing an action by the government to send troops to what I think is the most dangerous environment that we currently have people deployed to. There is no doubt that downtown Baghdad and other places in Iraq are dangerous, but I think the deployment we are now committing to in Afghanistan is, without doubt, the most dangerous deployment that we have sent Australian troops to.

The fact that it is dangerous has been recognised by the government in its decision—I think, correctly—to bolster the number of soldiers who are going to protect the engineers. It should be said that the engineers are not civilian engineers. They are army combat engineers. I am sure that they are quite capable of looking after themselves. But the government has correctly decided to increase the number of infantry troops that we will be sending to protect them. I believe that number now stands at 120. I am quite happy to say at this juncture that, if circumstances indicate that that is insufficient to provide the necessary security, we should not hesitate to provide additional troops or additional resources that they may need to ensure their protection.

We already have somewhere in the order of 200 special forces in the country and they have been involved in some of the most difficult conflicts that have been undertaken. Very little is reported about what goes on there, and I think that is a pity. We have a bit of a mushroom treatment within the Australian Defence community, I think, when it comes to these matters. There are good reasons why a whole host of things, when it comes to security, are not made public, but if you compare the cone of silence that is placed over Australian activities with that which applies to either the UK forces or the United States forces you have to wonder what it is that makes so many things so secret for so long when it comes to Australian troops.

I think there is a risk that the defence community and the government run in maintaining that cone of silence for too long and in too many areas. It is a risk of public cynicism or lack of support. I do not think that exists at the moment, and I am not trying to raise that as a concern today, but I would urge the government and the defence community to take the people of Australia into their confidence more on these matters, to explain more fully the role that our troops are performing and, when we have had incidents—and I believe there have been 11 in Afghanistan where Australian soldiers have been wounded—to allow the Australian people to have some idea about what has happened to those Australians, because a lot of Australians are concerned about that and they do not want to be just fobbed off. If you were in the United States, you would actually find out about it. You would find out about it probably because there would be media embedded. But, if not, you would find out about it because the US congressional system would ensure that the hearings on the hill would reveal it. We do not have that process here and I think the government should be less secretive about these things than it is. I think the defence community should be less secretive.

There was a very good article in yesterday’s Sunday Age written by Tom Hyland about this deployment, where he correctly characterised it as a conflict rather than a peacekeeping activity. He made mention of the fact that some of the troops that are being sent to provide protection are coming from 5/7RAR. He quoted from their official website as to what their role is. I think it is worth repeating because it draws into sharp focus the fact that this is a deployment in a difficult situation that is life threatening. This is not simply a peacekeeping activity. Part of the reason we know that is that the 5/7RAR are being sent to provide protection, and this is what their job is, quoted from their website in Tom Hyland’s article:

To seek out and close with the enemy by shock action, fire power and manoeuvre, to kill or capture them, to seize and hold ground by day or night regardless of weather or terrain.

That ain’t peacekeeping, but that is the fact of life in Afghanistan at the moment.

The area to which the Australians have been deployed is one of the more lawless parts of Afghanistan, and it is going to be important that our Australian troops are provided with all of the support they require in materiel as well. I know that the government have a couple of Chinooks in Afghanistan to provide support to the existing contingent. I would urge the government to review the level of support for the expanded contingent to ensure that there is immediate access to airlift capability if needed either to evacuate the injured or to quickly relocate troops if they find themselves in a difficult environment. Equally, there needs to be the necessary support with fire power, with air cover and with artillery. We do not have those assets there. We are relying on other countries to provide that support to our troops. That means we need to make sure, firstly, that our troops will be operating in a theatre where the command structure involves those assets and, secondly, that the protocols are in place so that the Australian troops can call in that support and receive it in a timely manner if they need to.

I assume those things have been put in place. The government have not in fact made statements that I am aware of to reassure the parliament that those matters have been dealt with. I give the commanding officers of the Defence Force more credit than I would the government to be satisfied that those things are in fact in place before we would be involved in deploying our troops to such a dangerous environment. But it is important that we do have that support for those troops who are going to be undertaking a very dangerous activity. Along with every other member of this parliament, I want to also add my best wishes for the speedy and safe return of all of the Australian troops who are being sent on our behalf and in our name to undertake this dangerous exercise.

I said at the outset that I view this as a wholly different conflict to that in Iraq. This is the battle that has to be waged whether we like it or not—and we do not. Sane people do not like going to war, it seems to me, but this is the war that has to be waged as a result of the threat we all now face from non-state terrorism. It is important for all of us, not least the people of Afghanistan, that a stable, democratic government exists in that part of the world, and I wish those Australians involved in this effort a speedy return, a safe journey and, as always, a job well done.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke in response to the Prime Minister in relation to the deployment, he had this to say:

It is a deployment which has bipartisan support and we would say to the government: ‘As you make your calculations of what is required for the troops in the field, if they require additional support from other elements of their military forces then they ought to get it.’ This is a very difficult task and a dangerous task on which they are engaged.

The member for Brisbane, who just spoke, has touched on a number of issues which I want to speak on. We know now, following the foolish deployment to Iraq, that for reasons the government have kept to themselves they did not deploy enough personnel when they went into Al Muthanna. This put immense pressure on the troops on the ground, who had to do the job on the one hand but on the other hand had to absorb the losses from the ranks as other military personnel went about other jobs or went on leave or whatever. The deployment in Iraq did not contain sufficient men to do the job properly, and the fact that the job was done properly is a reflection of the courage, the dedication and the professionalism of the troops on the ground.

But I would hope that following that mistake, which was rectified further into the deployment, we would not make the same blue in Afghanistan. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely spot-on when he said in response to the Prime Minister, ‘If they require additional support from other elements of their military forces, they ought to get it.’ Whether it is additional support to help maintain the very active patrolling that they will be doing or to simply ensure that they have adequate casevac and other dust-off facilities, it is important that they have them.

I want to touch on some other issues which were briefly referred to by the member for Brisbane in his very well-informed speech which certainly showed a great deal of knowledge about what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan. I want to refer in more detail to the article in the Age yesterday written by Tom Hyland. Tom Hyland is described as a senior reporter with the Age, and under the heading ‘Unclear and present danger’ he says this:

The public is left ignorant of what is being done in its name, while soldiers and their families go without recognition.

The body of the article goes on to say:

We have become used to the Federal Government sending troops overseas. They go away on deployments, to peacekeeping operations, to train allies, to help restore stability and aid reconstruction.

No longer, it seems, do we send troops to war where their job, at its most basic, is to kill the enemy and risk being killed themselves.

“More Australian peacekeepers bound for Afghanistan”. That’s how one news bulletin headlined last week’s news that the Government was sending extra troops to southern Afghanistan, a region in the grip of a resurgence by Taliban extremists that is taking a steady toll on Afghan and allied troops, not to mention civilians.

He goes on to say this:

The reality is, there is no peace to keep in southern Afghanistan.

This is especially so where the Australians are headed—Uruzgan province, the home of the Taliban, the site of the first victories in the American-led “war on terror” after the September 11 attacks, and one of the most dangerous places in a very dangerous country.

The headline also reinforces a wider community misunderstanding. For if we’ve become accustomed to the Government sending troops and police away on “deployments”, we have also come to expect all of them will come home again, notwithstanding the deaths of Sergeant Andrew Russell in Afghanistan in 2002, protective service officer Adam Dunning in the Solomons in 2004, Warrant Officer David Nary in Kuwait last year and Private Jake Kovco in Iraq this year.

One of the personnel that Tom Hyland did not mention, of course, was young Private Clark from 3RAR, who lost his life in the Solomons while on patrol. But he goes on to say this:

These deaths have been private burdens, not national ones, carried only by the dead men’s families and friends. And of the soldiers, only Sergeant Russell died as a result of enemy action.

The new and expanded role in Afghanistan might change that, because the troops going to Uruzgan are heading into a particularly nasty war.

In announcing the despatch of troops, the Government conceded the soldiers’ role was dangerous, with the Prime Minister saying any military operation in Afghanistan carried “significant risks”.

But the extent of that risk, and the measures being taken to minimise it, was obscured by the wording of the announcement, which emphasised the troops’ reconstruction role in “community-based projects”.

The Government is sending 150 extra troops, most of them to help protect a Reconstruction Task Force (RTF) due to start moving into Uruzgan this month. In May, when the Government announced it was forming the RTF, it said the 240-strong force would be half army tradesmen and engineers, and half infantry and armoured vehicles to defend them. The reinforcements announced last week double the protection force, meaning there will be about 150 reconstruction troops, protected by 240 infantry.

In other words, despite its name, the majority of the taskforce will be made up of fighting soldiers from the 6th Battalion and the 5th/7th Battalion.

The member for Brisbane mentioned what was contained on the website of the 5/7 RAR battalion in relation to its operational role. So not only are we strengthening the protection force; we also have to understand that those engineers, as well as being involved in reconstruction, will also have to man the perimeter and will have to accept their share of infantry style tasks in addition to their reconstruction work. They are trained in these roles and, if they need to, they will acquit themselves well.

I am just making these points and referring to this article because it drives home what the member for Brisbane says—that is, there is this cone of silence. There is this blanket that seems to be pulled over the operations of our troops overseas. Sometimes the best we get in relation to their operational tasks and the way they are going about them is perhaps a silly response to a dorothy dixer, which unfortunately this Minister for Defence seems to be getting better and better at. But we do not get good information from the government or, indeed, enough good information from Defence as to the role of our troops, the work that they are doing and the way they are going about that. Indeed, further on in his article, Tom Hyland says this:

Trying to get information from official Australian sources is like entering a parallel universe, where responses often bear no relation to the question asked.

I could say to Tom: ‘Welcome to the club! Come and spend a bit of time sitting in question time listening to the questions that are asked and trying to match them to the answers given.’

I want to make this point: our troops that we send overseas have responsibilities. They have 100 years of history and 100 years of proud heritage. They do not fail to meet their responsibilities. Where there is a failure of responsibility is back here in Australia. I think Tom Hyland has put his finger right on it. The member for Brisbane has mentioned it. I think this government has a responsibility to show a bit more commonsense, to show a bit more maturity and, I might say, to show a bit more respect for the troops and their families in the way that it disseminates information about what our troops are doing overseas. The role that our troops are performing—the professionalism, the courage, the tenacity, the dedication and the perseverance to work in those types of environments—demands more than some of the silly stupid dorothy dixers we get out of this Minister for Defence.

We want the government to step up to its responsibilities. We want the government to keep the parliament and the people of Australia properly informed as to the nature of the work that our men and women are doing overseas, the nature of exactly how it is that they are making a difference, and we also want a bit more respect shown for the troops in the way that information is disseminated. I call on the minister to step up to the plate, to show a bit more maturity and to go about his tasks in a way that reflects a bit more responsibility. Indeed, I think it is a very extreme responsibility when you are a Prime Minister, a Minister for Defence or a Leader of the Opposition and you have troops overseas. We want the government to meet those responsibilities.

I just want to close by saying that in my view we should never have pulled the pin on Afghanistan. Why did we pull out from Afghanistan when we did? We must have known that we were going into Iraq when we pulled out of Afghanistan. Why did we cut and run from Afghanistan? Why did we leave those people to themselves? We went there and fought a very damaging, total sort of warfare, not just in the hills and not just in the mountains but in areas which impacted on civilians—civilian men, women and kids. We left that country as a basket case. That is not a word I have picked myself but it was a word that was used by the Afghani ambassador when I asked him about the nature of things in Afghanistan after we had pulled out.

The sheer number of landmines that were planted over a very long period of time in Afghanistan meant that anywhere outside of the capital, Kabul, was a very dangerous place to be. The issue of landmines meant that area that was required for agriculture was denied to people. People could not move back into areas to resettle them and, of course, landmines were often used to protect the illicit, illegal but very well cultivated crops of drugs.

We had a greater responsibility to those people of Afghanistan, and it is certainly time we stepped in there to meet that responsibility. I agree with the member for Brisbane: those European countries that are so often derided by members opposite as being part of old Europe or whatever saw where the real threat was, saw where the real dangers were and saw where the real responsibility was too—to the people of Afghanistan—and I think they have met them.

I am pleased that we are back in Afghanistan. I hate the thought of ever having to deploy our young men and women overseas, and I look forward to a time when we will find other options. But they are there. I know they will do a good job and I hope they all come back safely. Our thoughts go out to them and their families. I say to their families: if they ever want any help or assistance, they know where we are and they should not hesitate to contact us.

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

There is no more serious decision that a government can take than a commitment of troops overseas. When we look at the situation in Afghanistan, there is clearly a case for this deployment to go ahead. Labor stands to support the government on that, but we also demand that the government support the troops properly in the field and, on their return, ensure that they get a fair go and the sort of support they require to do the job we know they can do. We support our troops and we have confidence in them. Australian troops have gone to a range of theatres overseas in peacekeeping roles and in roles such as this—which, I think, is far more than peacekeeping—and have always performed with great credit, with great professionalism and with great dignity. As other speakers have said, we also have to look at why we are returning to Afghanistan in the circumstances that we now face. I would just like to remind the House of a motion some time ago that stated:

That this House:

(1)

recognises the continued, central importance of Afghanistan as critical to the war against terrorism;

(2)

recognises that al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist organisations continue to pose a security threat to the government of Afghanistan;

(3)

recognises that removing this threat requires both the political transformation and economic reconstruction of Afghanistan with the full support of the international community; and

(4)

recognises that Australia must play a significant and substantive role, both bilaterally and multilaterally in under-pinning a long-term, secure future for the people of Afghanistan.

That motion is incredibly relevant to this debate. It could have been said by the Prime Minister. It could have been said by the Minister for Defence. It could have been said just the other day in the House at the time of the initial motion to take note of the deployment and the undertaking of this commitment, but it was not said then; it was said on 29 March 2004. It was moved by the member for Griffith and seconded by me, in private members’ business, following our return from Afghanistan just a few weeks earlier.

The circumstances we now face in Afghanistan should not be a surprise to anyone. That the circumstances were a surprise to this government, and that it took so long before serious action was taken, says something, I think, about the way this government operates and the sorts of choices it makes with respect to where and how it commits. What we are dealing with now is not new. The Prime Minister actually tried to take some cheap political shots at the member for Griffith in the House the other day when moving this motion—talking about opportunism. The fact is that the member for Griffith said this on the record years ago. He made it clear, after we visited Afghanistan, that there was a continuing clear and present danger there and that the circumstances faced by Afghanistan remained an international concern. He said we had cut and run too early in a situation where it was not right. We heard earlier the comments made by my friend—and I am happy to call him a friend—Ambassador Mahmoud Saikal on the circumstances in Afghanistan. Having heard the very words of President Hamid Karzai in the palace in Kabul, I know that those circumstances were clear back in 2004. But what did we have? We had one person left from the Australian commitment at that stage.

When we came back from Afghanistan and raised these issues with the government, we were laughed at and ignored. Now we are going back again and, I can tell you, it is worse now than when I was there. There is no doubt about that, from the reports that are coming through. There is no doubt that the situation our forces face over there is worse than it was when we were there in 2004. It was obvious then, as it has become obvious now. I go back to a speech some time ago in which someone said:

The importance of Australia’s role as one of the countries that went into Afghanistan and as one of the countries that stays there and helps with the rebuilding is absolutely paramount. There are enormous jobs that are required to be done and there is a range of innovative ways that they are being tackled by the international community. One of the projects that was discussed with us was PRTs—province reconstruction teams. These projects are being undertaken by the Americans, British, New Zealanders, Germans and others, but there is not a PRT that the Australian government has chosen to sponsor as yet. I would certainly urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs to look at the issue of PRTs as being something that Australia could do in addition to what it is currently doing to help rebuild that country in a holistic manner. If we do not deal with these issues now, we will find ourselves in a situation where we have to deal with them in the future.

That is a direct quote from a speech I made in the House on 29 March 2004. I am happy to quote myself in these circumstances because for once I was right. The situation was clear then—and what are we doing now? We are backing up a PRT run by the Netherlands. I support that. I think it is an excellent idea. We have to look at what we can do in respect of rebuilding Afghanistan, because the situation in Afghanistan with respect to the drug trade, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban—and its central role in the development and fostering of international terrorism in that region—must be dealt with. One thing we heard loud and clear from the people of Afghanistan, and from the leadership of that country, when we were there was that they have a long history of fighting in this area, a long history of being invaded, a long history of removing invaders and repelling them, and a long history of being ignored. If it continues again, we will find a similar situation.

There is no doubt, and it was clear at that time, that we got out too early. There is no doubt, and it was clear, that the Americans embarking on what they have done in Iraq was a very bad move. It was clear, from everyone we met in Afghanistan at that time, that there was absolutely no doubt at all that the job was still to be done—and now we are seeing the result of that.

I wish our troops all the very best. As I said earlier, I have tremendous confidence in them, their professionalism, their training and their capacity to be able to do this job. But they need not only our support here in this chamber; they also need our support with equipment and logistics. They need our support from go to whoa to make sure that they can do the job we know they can do. What we do not need is a situation where, all of a sudden, the government wakes up, as it has done on this occasion, and realises that it got out too early. It is another example of a foreign policy failure from this government. It is typical of how it has handled these issues over the years. It says something about the fact that it has not got its eye on the job. It is one thing to follow the Americans—and I can understand why, in some cases, that would be what you would do—but you can certainly see here another example of foreign policy by this government in which it is going back to fix something that it should have done properly in the first place.

I know there are other speakers who wish to speak tonight, and we are running out of time, so I will leave my comments there. I wish the troops all the very best and safety in what they must do.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate my friend the member for Bruce on his passionate exposition of the case for supporting our troops in Afghanistan, and the very serious way in which he has responded to this extra deployment, which the opposition quite responsibly supports. There were also the very serious speeches made by the members for Barton, Brisbane and Cowan. Together with them, I want to contrast the contribution by the member for Bruce against the absence of speeches from the other side. It is all very well for people to turn up to nice parades of our military and photo opportunities et cetera, but where are the speakers from the other side on this issue? There is not a single member of the government backbench to speak on deploying our troops overseas to the most dangerous deployment, at the moment, of anywhere that Australian troops are deployed to in the world. People know me in this House. I am not a person who bashes the government on national security issues when I think there is a national interest at stake. I have made that point many times. But the absence of government speakers on the Afghan deployment is a disgrace. I challenge the government to bring in some more speakers, when this debate resumes, so they too can address these issues that are of concern to the Australian people and to the great service people who are going to Afghanistan to work on our behalf.

I may resume my remarks when the members for Griffith, Chifley and Ballarat—those on our side who also want to speak—have that opportunity, but I want to look at one issue in particular raised by my esteemed friend, that greatly admired professor of public diplomacy, Professor Bill Maley, in the Sydney Morning Herald recently. Professor Maley was looking at what happened to Afghanistan and why the Kabul democracy’s prospects have declined like this. The new constitution was adopted in 2004. There was a peaceful election in October 2004. It seemed that things in Kabul were improving. Unfortunately, because of the failure of the Western countries that were so loud in their rhetoric but so negligent in their action, Afghanistan has had occur to it the kind of vacuum that the members for Bruce, Barton and Brisbane described so well. You had the Taliban reviving. You had the repeated failure of Western countries to go ahead with the commitments that they had made in the famous Berlin conference post the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. At the Berlin conference, let me remind the House, billions of dollars were promised for reconstruction in Afghanistan.

According to Professor Maley, a scholar who is highly trusted in this area—he is probably one of the world’s leading international experts on Afghanistan—only a fraction per capita of what Kosovo and even East Timor have received has been given to the government of Afghanistan. Maley makes an even stronger point when he says that the World Bank has criticised what is called a second civil service of UN agencies and private commercial contractors receiving rewards that are astronomical by Afghanistan standards but doing little to foster local capacity. Not enough is trickling down to the ordinary Afghans. To quote him exactly:

All this has created space for the Taliban to surge back, with active Pakistani backing.

This is also something that people who are serious in this House should look at. We had the visit of President Musharraf to this parliament. While we all support Pakistan’s involvement in the war against terrorism, it seems that the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, is involved in the resurgence of the Taliban—as it has been in the past. This is a disgrace. Given Australia’s good relations with Pakistan, we should be more active in putting that issue to the Pakistani government. Professor Maley continues:

The Afghan army is proving too expensive for the Afghans, so the security sector is subject to the vagaries of budget decisions made in foreign capitals. The police force is only a pale shadow of what is needed, and the size of the opium economy poses a real risk that Afghanistan could become a narco-state.

It is not too late to turn things around, but time is short. The Afghan Government needs to refocus on the delivery of competent, clean and inclusive governance, with particular emphasis on the delivery of security through effective community policing.

For its part, the wider world needs to ensure that its practical commitment matches its effusive rhetoric.

Too much of the “assistance” to Afghanistan has been crafted to meet short-term Western needs - for effective counterterrorism and the eradication of opium crops - without sufficient attention to what the Afghans’ long-term needs might be.

The irony is that in the long run the needs of the Afghans for social and political stability reflect the very thing it is in the long-term interest of Western powers to promote.

The first challenge for Australia, therefore, as it deploys soldiers to the danger zone of Uruzgan is to think very deeply about exactly what they are going there to do.

Of course, particularly having just been on one of the parliamentary Defence Force deployments, I now have a better understanding and feeling for the service people on active service like the ones who are going to go over there. They have acquitted themselves already with great distinction. In fact, one Australian received the highest US award ever for our role in Operation Anaconda in which Australian soldiers, the SAS in particular, were responsible for saving the lives of many Americans in a very crucial battle with the Taliban some short years ago. But we have to consider the situation of our people in this new deployment very seriously. With the time running out, I seek leave to resume my remarks later and go the full 15 minutes, if that is okay with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I know that there are other people on this side who want to speak. As I say, through the Government Whip present here, I challenge the government to bring speakers up here and consider this very important deployment, this very dangerous deployment where we are probably going to see Australians killed. I do not like to say that, but that is something that the government should take more seriously than it is at the moment.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.