Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the motion before the House, I think that Afghanistan is not a country that you can look at without looking at its history. For those who like history, Alexander the Great was well into conquering what we now know as Pakistan and India and it is said in the history books that he took a look at Afghanistan and decided to go home to Macedonia. He put it in the too-hard basket. Some 1,000 years later Genghis Khan, another of the most famous conquerors in all of human history, took on the Afghanis, was defeated and decided to take on Europe instead. He thought Europe was a softer target, which it proved to be. There is really not much record of him being defeated in Europe whereas he had been soundly defeated in Afghanistan.

If we move on another 600 or 700 years later the British Empire sent a full army of 55,000 men into Afghanistan and, basically, nobody returned. The mightiest empire the world has ever seen was soundly annihilated by Afghanistan. So Britain decided to leave Afghanistan alone. Some 300 or 400 years later the Russians decided that they were going to take on Afghanistan. For those, again, who like reading history books I think Charlie Wilson’s War should be compulsory reading for everyone in this place, particularly if they are talking about Afghanistan.

Clearly the combination of the sort of people the Afghanis are and the sort of terrain you are dealing with in Afghanistan resulted in the collapse of the communist empire. Russia collapsed as a result of her involvement in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a country which, for a raft of reasons, none of the great conquerors nor the great empires in history have succeeded in being able to get to move in the direction they wanted it to move in. If you ask whether the occupation of Afghanistan is going to end up successfully, it has not yet in human history and one would wonder why it would end up so this time with the Americans being successful.

Brigadier Mansford was the most highly qualified and experienced soldier in the Australian Army and, I think, the most decorated soldier in the Australian Army and was a man who had 15 years as a private and was briefly a sergeant before the Army decided to put him up for promotion. He said that we have a commitment in Afghanistan which we now cannot ignore. He said that we have to train these people, their police, their military and their administrative regimes and then slowly edge ourselves out and hand over to the local authorities.

He adds that there should be a timetable which takes into account what the Army is capable of doing with or without support and that it ought to be reviewed on a yearly basis. There should be objective assessments and objective criteria for a yearly assessment of what is happening, particularly with the training of the Afghan army and its administrative adjuncts. He believes that that is the smart way to fight a war—that is, a limited commitment along the lines he has outlined here. I think that is the voice of great experience. He is a man who served his country in Vietnam; he may even have served in Korea, although I do not think so and maybe I am wrong there. Most certainly he is the most experienced soldier who held a very senior rank still alive today—in fact, if you are a brigadier you are in charge of our combat force in Australia. That was the position that he once held.

We are in our ninth year of commitment. There have been 21 Australian deaths and, sadly, among them was Benjamin Chuck, who was from my home area of Far North Queensland. The operations have cost the Australian people $6,000 million so far and the non-military financial assistance totals more than $700 million. We are not Robinson Crusoe: some 47 countries and 120,000 personnel have been involved. Brigadier Mansford also pointed out that the situation in Pakistan is highly volatile, with the government trying to maintain democratic institutions in the face of a very strong but not very tolerant fundamentalist surge. Having said all those things there has never been any doubt in my mind that, if the Americans go in and they request us to go in, we absolutely must go in. This is not a happy event for Australia. Are we to tag along as the tail on the donkey? Yes, that is absolutely correct. If Australia has virtually no defence force, and I do not wish in any way to reflect upon our armed forces but simply to lay that down. I know that it is changing and that there has been movement as far as the Air Force goes.

To put it in understandable language: people say, ‘There’s no imminent threat to Australia’. There was no imminent threat to Australia in 1962 when I was 18 years of age and finished school after Kennedy had backed down the Russians. There was no imminent threat anywhere at the time. We were in a very safe environment. By the time I was 18½ I was handed an SLR rifle and informed that I was on 24-hour call-up to go and fight in Indonesia, and I had to provide telephone numbers. We were in a war with Indonesia which was delightfully referred to as ‘Konfrontasi’. I hope that they are our best friends. They are our neighbours and I believe that one should love one’s neighbours and be loved by one’s neighbours, but when we faced off against Indonesia we had 250,000 SLR rifles and we had a million semiautomatic rifles standing behind us. I myself owned a very good rifle, an AK-47, and my brother owned an automatic shotgun which was a magnificent piece of machinery, and we were only two of many in Australia.

So we had best part of 300,000 good combat rifles, and there were a million other semiautomatic rifles standing behind them. We were not the sort of country that you would want to pick a fight with. We had arguably the sixth or seventh most formidable air force on earth. We had a significant navy. We had a few destroyers and bits and pieces; I think we had an aircraft carrier at the time and a number of frigates. Then, we had near enough to 300,000 rifles. Now, we have 50,000 rifles. We do not have 300,000 but 50,000. The million semiautomatics do not exist at all; they are gone completely. When I last looked at the Air Force—and admittedly change is coming—it is the same Air Force that existed then. It is 50 years old now, and there is a small problem. You can say, ‘There are some very formidable pieces of machinery.’ How would you like to set off across the Simpson Desert in Central Australia in a four-wheel drive that is 50 years old? This is infinitely more sophisticated machinery than a four-wheel drive. As far as the Navy goes, we have eight frigates. To be technical about it, there were five Exocet missiles in the Falklands War and they took out two destroyers, one of which had interception capacity. We can be very mathematical about it. If our opponents have 24 Exocet missiles—the fingers of both hands flicked up twice and then four added to that—then we will have no Australian Navy whatsoever and only 50,000 rifles with which to defend Australia. If we get into a stoush, what are we going to do? Are we going to throw rocks at them?

In 1939 there was not considered to be any great threat to Australia. Yes, there was a great threat in Europe from Adolf Hitler but there was no great threat to Australia. Japan was up to its eyeballs in trouble in China but they were no threat to us. But by 1941 they were two weeks away from invading Australia. I will tell you how the government looked after us then. Again, for those who like reading books, I would recommend either of David Day’s two books.

This war was substantially a war about aeroplanes. Britain could not be invaded because they had a better air force. They won the Battle of Britain. Germany could not invade without air cover. The Germans won every single battle whilst they had air cover and, arguably, they lost every single battle after they lost air cover. This was true with Britain and it was true with Germany’s battle against the Russians. When the Japanese had air superiority during the war, they won every battle. I might also add that 13 out of 15 of the naval battles were won by Japan. Until she lost her air superiority, which was midway during the war, she had won every battle; however, after that, she lost every battle. The Second World War was about aeroplanes.

Our government had thought: ‘We’ve got no threats; therefore, we’re wasting money by spending it on defence. So we won’t worry too much about that. If we get into trouble, Britain will come out to save us.’ My own family, the Henleys, do not have any love for England, because two of the Henleys were swimming for their lives off Crete, another two were fighting their way across the Owen Stanley Ranges and another one was rotting in Changi prison. Where was Britain? Britain was supposed to come out here and save us. With all due respects to my forebears, the Henleys, I do not think you run a country that way. What are we, some sort of a lap-dog where we expect everyone else to look after us? Britain had their own battles to fight in defence of their own country, Great Britain, as well as Europe. They were not too worried about us.

Further, if you think the Americans are going to race out here and save us, you had better have a look at the history of that country. The Americans entered the First World War only when there was public outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania—that forced them into the war—and, at that stage, the war was almost over. Masses of people from the German side as well as, I might add, from the allied side were simply leaving the battlefields. The battle was almost over by the time the Americans came into that war. Of course, they steadfastly refused to become involved in the Second World War. The only thing that pushed them into the Second World War was the bombing of Pearl Harbour. If there had been no Pearl Harbour and Japan had simply kept moving down the south-east Asian mainland towards Australia, one wonders what position the Americans would have taken. If you were a mother in America and you said, ‘Am I going risk my—(Time expired)

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001were a defining moment in the history of the 21st century. These events, of course, were followed by terrorist attacks in Bali, London, Madrid and Jakarta, and together these events brought home to the international community the seriousness of the threat to democratic freedom posed by a small group of fanatics whose purpose is to destroy the basic human rights that define a civil society. Those rights and freedoms, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom of religious affiliation, have all been hard won. They have been defended in two world wars and they are being defended now in Afghanistan. It is important to remember the speed and the intensity of the international reaction to 9-11. The tragedy and the terror of it took our collective breath away. The leaders of the Western democracies named the attacks for what they were—terror attacks on our fundamental values. To his credit, former Prime Minister John Howard, supported by Labor, was quick to associate the Australian government with the international community’s support for the United States. It is also important to remember that the United Nations moved quickly to condemn the terrorist attacks and al-Qaeda. The legitimacy of our presence in Afghanistan is expressed in Security Council resolution 1378 of 14 November 2001 to which I will return.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have canvassed in some detail the reasons that Australia is part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I will not retrace that ground but I would like to speak further about tackling international terrorism, because it is at the core of our mission in Afghanistan. The former Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, delivered a ministerial statement on Afghanistan on 23 June this year, in which he reminded the parliament of the reasons for which Australia remains committed to eradicating terrorism and restoring stability in Afghanistan. He said:

Our fundamental objective in Afghanistan is to combat a clear threat from international terrorism to both international security and our own national security. Australia cannot afford … to let Afghanistan again become a safe haven and training ground for terrorist organisations.

This reasoning for Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan has not changed. It is as valid now as it was in 2001. I personally support this reasoning because I am resolutely committed to democratic freedoms and recognise that they are threatened by the terrorism that we confront. The fact that terrorist training and organisation has developed in other countries since 2001 does not constitute a basis for withdrawal from Afghanistan as has been argued or suggested by some. It means, however, that we must remain resolute in Afghanistan and also work in an appropriate way with our allies to meet the terrorist challenge wherever it does arise.

International terrorism seeks to destroy the foundations of our democratic way of life because it seeks to impose absolutist values on peoples and nations where mutual respect, tolerance and a basic belief in a fair go for everyone underpin the fundamental civil freedoms. Because international terrorism is by its nature a direct attack on us, we have no option but to tackle it head-on and defeat it wherever it appears. Terrorists employ clandestine methods. They secret themselves within the body politic, exploiting its freedoms and tolerance in order to destroy them. They rely on assassinations and bombings to achieve their objectives. Improvised explosive devices remain a weapon of choice, for example, in Afghanistan, killing soldiers and civilians alike. To counter terrorism we need to remind ourselves of the underlying factors on which Australia’s approach to our involvement in Afghanistan is based. They are the strategic necessity for the conflict and the legitimacy of the conflict. Strategic necessity is driven by the need for a nation to defend itself against attack, and there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were attacks on the territory of the United States. As a strong ally of the US, there were clear implications for our own country, not simply because of our mutual obligations under the ANZUS treaty.

Traditionally, attacks on a nation’s territory and population by another state have been the symbols of a more basic attack on the political and social fabric that gives a nation in its identity. This is something that Churchill grasped implicitly at the outbreak of the Second World War when he described Hitler’s attack on Britain as a repudiation of what is most sacred to humankind—that is, individual liberty. Terrorism seeks to destroy us as a nation and that is why we have no option but to act in concert with like-minded nations to confront and destroy those who would seek to destroy us. There is no room for appeasement and accommodation with this threat, rather strategic necessity demands strength and determination.

In that strategic context, the coalition’s operations in Afghanistan are supported by a suite of Security Council resolutions that confer clear international legitimacy on what are our acts of self-defence. Resolution 1368, adopted on the day following the 9/11 attacks, together with resolutions 1373, 1378, 1383 and 1386, provide a clear mandate for international cooperation in the use of armed force to destroy terrorist groups in Afghanistan. But there is another dimension here as well. The people of Afghanistan need to see the deployment of foreign forces to their country as being in their interests, as being legitimate at the local level.

Australia’s contribution to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and to the training of the Afghan National Army are, therefore, central components of our strategy in Afghanistan. In this task the ADF is well equipped to undertake those responsibilities and continues to operate successfully in Oruzgan province in particular. Its mission includes the following: disrupting insurgent networks and restricting their mobility and supply routes; training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army; protecting the civilian aid workers who are delivering the reconstruction projects; and working with the Afghan National Army to implement the ISAF strategy of securing key population areas, food production areas and key transport routes. As Senator Faulkner has said previously, all of that translates into safer villages, a better food supply and more economic activity, which are crucial if we are to build local legitimacy. The ADF is achieving these objectives within the force levels recommended by the Chief of the Defence Force and as committed to our ISAF partners.

Implicit in a number of public comments made in recent times is both an attempt to politicise some aspects of the Australian effort in Afghanistan and also a challenge to the judgment and advice of the Chief of the Defence Force. We have heard, for example, some commentary to the effect that troop numbers may be inadequate, that equipment is insufficient or inappropriate, and that the military justice system itself is deficient. This is regrettable and very ill-advised commentary. As members know, the CDF is the government’s principal adviser on operational deployments by the ADF. Those who, with little operational knowledge or insight, make those comments pay insufficient regard to the professionalism and competence of the CDF and his senior leadership team. As a former minister in the defence portfolio I can attest to the outstanding quality of the ADF leadership and especially that of the CDF, for whom I have the highest regard. As the head of the Defence Force, the CDF has frequently expressed his deep and continuing concern for the safety of our defence personnel. This was a key reason for the government’s substantial increase to the ADF’s organic force protection.

That concern has been front and centre of the government’s approach to force protection for our troops in Afghanistan. As Senator Faulkner announced on 1 June this year, the government has allocated $1.67 billion for force protection capabilities for the ADF. This investment takes into account the evolving nature of the risks from roadside bombs. It includes measures for better intelligence on those who make the IEDs, greater protection and firepower for ADF vehicles and upgraded body armour for our troops. It also provides for the acquisition of a counter-rocket artillery and mortar capability to warn of incoming rocket attacks.

It is also disappointing to observe some of the confusion that has arisen in some quarters about the military justice system as it applies to possible disciplinary action against those who may be subject to allegations that they acted illegally or inappropriately in the conduct of operations. This is a matter on which there has been longstanding bipartisan agreement. It was Prime Minister Howard’s government, with Labor’s support, which created the independent position of Director of Military Prosecutions and it is important and vital that the Director of Military Prosecutions remains completely free from external influence and direction. It is even more important that some of the populist sentiment that we have heard should not be permitted to colour the decisions of the Director of Military Prosecutions.

There has been considerable commentary on an exit strategy. It is evident that the job facing the international community in Afghanistan is very difficult and complicated. The best protection we have against terrorism is a strong civil society with strong institutions, which is the key focus of the ADF and our international partners in Afghanistan. For us to be successful in this endeavour it is important that the parliament is squarely behind our troops as they help deliver the stability and reconstruction in Afghanistan that is essential if we are to have a secure world.

In recent days a number of commentators have declared the war in Afghanistan perhaps unwinnable and, for that reason, have recommended that Australia should withdraw. A much more sober assessment was offered by the former CDF General Peter Gration, who noted that an exit strategy depends on knowing when the key goals have been achieved. The government’s view concerning the duration of our commitment in Afghanistan has been clearly articulated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said our forces will be part of this vital work through the coming decade. The international community is working with the government of Afghanistan to improve the quality and integrity of its governance and accountability. Far from it being a reason to withdraw, as some have suggested, it is critical that we continue with this work in progress.

In asymmetric contests such as we face in Afghanistan, victory is defined not by the conventional concept of total destruction of the enemy’s capacity to fight but by the practical denial of training opportunities and logistics support. These goals are measured by the success of reconstruction, the creation of an Afghan National Army that is able to deliver domestic security, the building of viable institutions and the establishment of a functioning civil society. As the US general in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has noted, the International Security Assistance Force is making progress to achieve these goals. If this can stay on track, it is to be expected that Australia will be able to wind back, ultimately, its contribution. In the meantime, we must do all that we can to support the members of the ADF.

Again, as a former portfolio minister I had the privilege of meeting many ADF members and their families. We all grieve at the loss of life and care for those struggling with physical and mental wounds. I extend my sincere gratitude to all who serve for our country. I know that they serve with the knowledge that they defend our democratic values and freedoms, and I share with all Australians a deep respect and admiration for their endeavours on our behalf.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate today on the motion to take note of the Prime Minister’s statement on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan. I will not say it is a pleasure, because, to be frank, any discussion of war can never be a pleasure. Nevertheless, it is entirely appropriate that we, as representatives of the people of Australia, reflect on the situation in Afghanistan and the critical role our soldiers are playing in trying to bring stability to that troubled nation as well as the wider consequences for the fight against terrorism and the support of international security.

Nine years after this war began, it is sometimes easy to overlook the magnitude of the events that gave rise to it. However, we must not ever forget the horrors of September 11, 2001. The barbaric and murderous acts of terror carried out that day were not merely an attack on a few buildings or one particular nation; they were an attack on our way of life, on democratic freedoms, on individual freedoms, on individual liberty, on free economies, on all that we hold dear. There were a great many disturbing and indeed sickening images to emerge on that day. These things are indelibly burned into our memories—the collapse of the twin towers, the burning Pentagon, the scenes of panic as New Yorkers ran to safety, the flag-draped stretchers bearing the bodies of those emergency workers who died whilst saving others and, as emerged later, the harrowing and emotional recordings of calls made by those who in their last moments of life took the opportunity to phone those closest to them and tell them that they loved them one final time.

Yet perhaps the most disturbing images to emerge from those days were not the images captured in the United States; rather they were the scenes of jubilation witnessed in some parts of the world as radical Islamic fundamentalists cheered, danced, held rallies and otherwise celebrated the murders of thousands of innocent people. I am prepared to accept that cultural factors may have had a bearing on some behaviours, but there can be no factor—cultural, religious or otherwise—that can ever excuse the images we saw emerging from some parts of the world in those days immediately following September 11. Any person who doubts that pure evil lies at the core of al-Qaeda’s being need only be shown the footage I have just described.

In September 2001 the world resolved to confront the evil of al-Qaeda and vowed never to let anything akin to these attacks happen again. Yet even as the struggle in Afghanistan was in what we now know were its early days, Australia again suffered the trauma of terrorist violence as 88 of our country’s men and women died as a result of terrorist bombings in Bali in October 2002. This brought the horrifying reality of terrorism right into Australia’s backyard, as we saw our fellow Australians being slain by Islamic fundamentalists for doing what we all like to do—relaxing and spending time with friends and family. If there had been any doubt that the terrorists’ goal was to destroy our way of life and attack our freedoms, the Bali bombings surely ended it. In the years to follow, we would again be reminded of the terrorists’ determination to wreak havoc wherever possible as we witnessed further attacks in Indonesia, in Spain and in London—all of them places frequented by Australians.

The war in Afghanistan and the broader war against terrorism are not like previous conflicts. The enemy does not respect geographic boundaries and measures its success not in terms of territory gained but in terms of numbers killed. This is the brutal reality we are forced to confront. We are dealing with an enemy which does not adhere to any facet of basic human decency. What can one say of people who think nothing of using civilians as human shields as they engage in gunfire with our soldiers? What can be said of a regime that brutally suppresses women, that restricts access to education and that executes people on a whim? There is no epithet that is vile enough to describe the mindset of these murderous people.

There are some who feel that this conflict can be resolved through dialogue, through negotiation, through trying to understand the other side’s viewpoint. I do not agree. That view is based on a tragically misguided assumption—namely, that we are dealing with rational people. Quite plainly we are not. An enemy that actively seeks to prevent learning is hardly going to be inclined to engage in reasoned discussion with its opponents. There is no such thing as a moderate fundamentalist or a rational radical. Despite the claims of al-Qaeda’s apologists—and, unbelievably, there are some dotted throughout the Western world—these terrorists are not misunderstood. They are not victims. They are not misguided, oppressed, dispossessed, disenfranchised or any of the other various adjectives employed by those that seek to defend the indefensible. They are irrational, hate-fuelled killers who will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their twisted and barbaric objectives.

If the Taliban and their al-Qaeda partners are not stopped in Afghanistan, they will move further into Pakistan. They will keep pushing, taking violence to the Western world again and again. We have already seen them do it in the USA, in the UK, in Spain and in Indonesia. We cannot afford to let it happen here in Australia. Accordingly, it is right that our soldiers continue to fight in Afghanistan along with our coalition allies. This is not a war of conquest. The task may not be simple, but the goal is. We seek nothing more than a free society—where thought is not a crime, dissent can be a virtue and religion is a choice that reflects the innate goodness of the human heart. As I say, this task is not a simple one, but then establishing a free country never is. Australia is one of the few free nations on earth that was not birthed through violent revolution, though that is not to suggest its birth was easy or free of suffering, because plainly it was not.

Australian soldiers are undertaking vitally important work in Afghanistan, mentoring, training and supporting the Afghan army’s 4th brigade. Progress is being made and, yes, progress is slow—slower than I would like and slower than most Australians would like. It is true that our soldiers are operating in one of Afghanistan’s more dangerous regions, Oruzgan province, and this is reflected in the tragedy of the increased number of Australian casualties in recent months. I spoke last week in the parliament of the tremendous and ultimate sacrifice these young men made to secure the safety of the Afghan people and to protect the security of Australians here at home.

We have lost 21 of our finest in this struggle against the Taliban. There can be no more confronting reminder of the cost of this war than the sight of grieving families farewelling their loved ones, particularly distraught children attending their dad’s funeral. I know all of us were especially moved by the funeral of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, when news emerged later that day that in the hours following the funeral Jared MacKinney’s wife, Beckie, had given birth to their second child—a son, Noah Jared.

I have said before and I say again that war has a terrible human cost. Having served for a long period in the Army, I understand the challenges our soldiers face. Yet when you read the statements from the families of fallen soldiers, many of the same themes emerge—that they believed in serving their country, how highly they valued the friendship and support of their fellow soldiers and that they supported the mission and believed in the cause they died supporting.

I believe that to abandon this mission now would fail to honour the sacrifice made by these 21 brave and dedicated soldiers and family men. Having begun this difficult task nine years ago, we have to see it through. Australia owes that much to Afghanistan, to our allies and ultimately to ourselves and the families of the 21 soldiers we have lost.

I am not arguing for an open-ended commitment. Australia has certain tasks to complete in mentoring the Afghan army and making sure that it is able to provide protection and security for its own citizens. We must also provide the support that is needed to Afghanistan’s central government, to make sure it is able to suppress the Taliban threat on a permanent basis. This will not be quick or easy; however, I maintain that a few difficult years now is infinitely preferable to an even more protracted struggle down the road, as would undoubtedly occur were the Taliban to infest other nations in the region, including Pakistan, with its hideous ideology.

To leave now would almost certainly guarantee the re-emergence of a Taliban-led government in Afghanistan. What progress has been made in terms of democratic elections, improved rights for women and better educational opportunities for the Afghan people would be wiped out. With a secure base in Afghanistan, the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies would once more turn their murderous intentions toward Pakistan, to the rest of the subcontinent, to the Middle East and perhaps to Central Asia. That would have devastating implications for Australia and for Australians, both in national security and in economic terms.

Having committed to this mission, we must ensure that our soldiers have the equipment and resources they need to undertake their very difficult task. I support the words used by the Leader of the Opposition during his very effective contribution to this debate:

It is not our role to second-guess the advice of commanders on the ground in terms of troop numbers or equipment.

I trust the government will continue to monitor the situation carefully and provide timely information to this parliament as appropriate. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to an annual statement in this House about the progress being made—and I hope that on each occasion in the years immediately ahead whoever is Prime Minister will be able to inform the House that greater progress is being made as Afghanistan moves towards a more independent national security framework.

I know that this is not a position all members of the House will share, nor is it a position that all Australians will share. In the lead-up to this debate, I have been contacted by numerous constituents in Cowan. I am sure many members of this place have had a similar experience. War, by its very nature, is an issue that evokes a wide range of passionate opinions. Those of my constituents with whom I have spoken have represented a full range of opinions. I thank the constituents who have taken the time to let me know their views on the war in Afghanistan. This has happened in recent days, but also I thank the many people who have raised issues with me over the whole three years I have been the member for Cowan. Many of my constituents have drawn upon their own experiences in Vietnam and other wars or operations and I value their perspectives. Others have provided me with their moral and ideological viewpoints. All are valid. What has been clear is that in Cowan the majority of people who have contacted me do not like war and they do not like our soldiers dieing in Afghanistan, but they do appreciate that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cannot be allowed to win and that our soldiers should not die in vain.

One of those who took the time to contact me ahead of my contribution today was Mr Patrick Shinnick, himself a CMF veteran. Mr Shinnick holds some strong views on the Afghanistan conflict and the level of support being afforded to our soldiers. Whilst I and the many other people I have spoken to about the war in the last three years do not agree with every issue he raised in his correspondence to me, I would certainly echo the sentiment he expressed—I understand this is not an original quote—that, ‘They only deserve freedom who are prepared to defend it.’ I would also note two more views of Mr Shinnick which are widely held in Cowan. Although I have not covered them today, I have mentioned them before in parliament. The first point is the concern that so many of those who come by boat illegally from Afghanistan choose to come here and not to fight for the freedom of their own country. Mr Shinnick and one other constituent of mine suggested that we should arm and train the young men who come here illegally by boat and send them back to fight in their own country. I would advocate great caution in arming these people, as I believe they could then constitute a security threat for Australia.

The second point Mr Shinnick raises, which I particularly agree with, is the matter of compensation and support for the families of the soldiers killed or wounded. This is a matter that represents an obligation of the nation to those who have given so much in the national interest. I hope that this debate serves to remind all members of the important cause our soldiers are fighting for in Afghanistan. As I have remarked before, I often think that when we enter the House of Representatives each day we should have to walk past a board showing the names of the soldiers who have died in this current war, to remind us that our deliberations and our decisions have serious consequences. This discussion must never be couched solely in language concerning financial cost or foreign policy outcomes. Regrettably, soldiers will be lost and families will be devastated.

In our determination to see our mission through, let us not forget the names of those 21 who have given their lives to help bring stability to a troubled region. Let us not forget the families they leave behind, particularly young children. Let us not forget those who have suffered and died at the hands of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist groups who will stop at nothing in the pursuit of their perverted ideological ends. Let us not forget those Australians who have died at the hands of terrorists around the world—the innocent victims of barbaric murderers who measure success not in terms of votes won or minds changed but merely in terms of numbers killed.

I am sure the thoughts of all members of the House of Representatives are with our soldiers in Afghanistan. We should all be proud of the job they are doing, of the way they represent our country in some of the most inhospitable places on earth. We wish them well as they continue their difficult work and hope that further progress is made, that the pace of success increases and that they return to their homes and families safely.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support our government’s position in Afghanistan. There is considerable bipartisan support in this parliament for our commitment to the war in Afghanistan, a commitment entered into under the previous government and supported by us when in opposition. Australia was there at the beginning because Afghanistan was home to al-Qaeda and there was widespread support for action against the Taliban, both domestic support here and international support through the backing of the United Nations. We are in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and at the invitation of the Afghan government and we are there in support of the ANZUS alliance. The United States is our most important friend and ally and the decision to stand alongside the US to prosecute the war on terror in Afghanistan was and remains firmly anchored in Australia’s national interest.

As an alliance partner, article 4 of the treaty required Australia to join the United States in response to the al-Qaeda attack on US soil—the September 11 attacks that also took Australian lives. The Taliban’s support for that al-Qaeda attack on US soil positioned Afghanistan as a legitimate target for military action by the US and its alliance partners. Labor is a strong and committed supporter of international efforts and we have never wavered in our commitment to the mission in Afghanistan.

Our mission there today has three key objectives: stabilisation, denying sanctuary to terrorists and training the Afghan national security forces in the Oruzgan province. We are there with 46 other troop-contributing nations as part of an international strategy which, whilst slow, is working. The mission takes many forms, all of which reflect great credit on the personal and professional attributes of the Australian men and women serving in Afghanistan. Our defence, police and civilian personnel are training and mentoring the Afghan National Army and the National Police. They are conducting high-risk counterinsurgency operations in the Oruzgan province. They are building important community infrastructure such as schools and health clinics and working with provincial authorities to deliver improved governance for the Afghan people. These are vital contributions to the counterinsurgency strategy of the International Security Assistance Force, namely, to shape, clear, hold and build in support of the Karzai government.

Difficult as it is, solid progress continues to be made. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for al-Qaeda and the momentum of the Taliban insurgency has been blunted. We are seeing tangible improvements in the quality of health, education and infrastructure outcomes enjoyed by the Afghan people. There are more and more Afghan kids enrolled in schools. Access to health services has been extended from 10 per cent to almost 85 per cent of the population and there has been a remarkable improvement in roads and community infrastructure across Afghanistan. Australia’s presence is making a difference, and we will continue to stand firm alongside the Afghan people and the international community until the mission is complete.

It pays to have a memory in this place and it is timely to remind ourselves of the important history which led to Australia’s military presence in Afghanistan. Labor has never shirked from its obligation to protect and defend the nation’s security interests; nor has it wavered in support for our men and women in uniform. A decision to commit our troops to armed conflict is one that must never be taken lightly. They are grave decisions for a government to make. The decision to place our men and women in harm’s way is the ultimate test—indeed, the ultimate burden—of national leadership.

In 1991, the Hawke government committed Australian forces to the first Gulf War—our participation enjoyed by partisan support on the basis of an international coalition led by the United States but with the specific authorisation of the United Nations. In relation to the second Gulf war in 2003, however—and I was leader of the Labor Party at the time—we could not extend bipartisan support to the Howard government’s decision to commit Australian troops to the war in Iraq. There was a critical distinction between 1991 and 2003. The first Gulf War was authorised by a specific UN resolution and was at the invitation of the host nation. Neither of these conditions applied to the second Gulf war. As Leader of the Opposition, I opposed John Howard’s decision to join the US-led Coalition of the Willing to effect regime change in Iraq based on what proved to be the fiction of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Labor argued that the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, should be allowed to complete the search for weapons of mass destruction and that Australia should not commit troops in the absence of a UN resolution. We counselled patience and proper processes under the auspices of the UN and, although we were ignored by the Howard government, the subsequent unfolding of events in Iraq has certainly vindicated Labor’s position.

These were difficult days for Labor. We were accused of failing to support our troops, we were labelled as appeasers and apologists for Saddam Hussein and we were accused of abandoning our commitment to the US alliance. The critics were wrong on all counts. On the first point, in my speech of farewell to the crew of HMAS Kanimbla in 2003, I was absolutely clear on Labor’s position: Labor opposed the decision to enter into armed conflict without the authorisation of the United Nations but, whilst opposed to the war, we were unwavering in our support for the men and women of the ADF who had been asked by the Australian government to place themselves in harm’s way. They had no choice—that was their duty as members of the Australian defence forces. Our argument was with the government of the day, not with the troops who had no choice but to go.

John Howard, I hear, has expressed contempt for Labor’s position in his recent book and has described his sleepless nights in the lead-up to Gulf War II. Let me simply say this: I sleep well at night, comfortable in the knowledge that Labor stuck true to a principled position which has stood the test of time. Unlike Afghanistan, no-one ever argued that our support in Iraq was required because of the US alliance. Let me remind the House, in this context, of my words to President Bush here in this chamber on 23 October 2003—the words that I uttered as leader of the party. Those words were as true then as they are today:

… Australia looks to itself; to the self-reliance of a proud, a free, a strong and an independent people … Our commitment to the alliance remains unshakable, as does our commitment to the war on terror. But friends must be honest with each other.

And I said:

Of course, on occasions, friends do disagree—as we did, on this side, with you on the war in Iraq.

Beyond the alliance issue, Labor consistently argued that al-Qaeda’s centre of gravity was Afghanistan, not Iraq. Australia allowed itself to be diverted into Iraq—the wrong war and the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. It was Afghanistan that needed to be the focus of the war on terror, not Iraq.

Despite compelling evidence that the real threat to Australia’s national security interests lay with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Howard government shifted its focus to Iraq. In pursuing the goal of forming the coalition of the willing, we downgraded our presence in Afghanistan to a solitary lieutenant colonel. We paid a price in Afghanistan, not just in terms of lost time but in terms of the resurgence of the Taliban, and we have been playing catch-up ever since.

When the Howard government realised its folly and decided to deploy special forces to Afghanistan in September 2005, Labor extended bipartisan support to that deployment. It was not before time that Australia returned its focus to Afghanistan and to the rebuilding of a fragile nation. We also welcomed the decision to replace the Special Forces Task Force with the Reconstruction Task Force in September 2008 and, again, we supported the subsequent redeployment of the Special Operations Task Group to Oruzgan province in 2007.

Neither the Australian people nor the people of Afghanistan should be in any doubt that Australia will see this mission through. We will not turn our backs on Afghanistan. We will continue to fight against the Taliban and their message of false hope for the Afghan people. We will continue to rebuild Afghanistan and continue our efforts to improve the quality of life for Afghans. Australia has compelling national interests in Afghanistan. We must deny sanctuary to terrorists who have threatened and killed Australian citizens, we must prepare the Afghan people to take control of their destiny and of course we must honour our commitment to the United States and our international partners in the Afghan mission.

We are not blind to the awful price to be paid for our mission in Afghanistan. No mother or father should have to tend the grave of their son or daughter. We know that 21 young Australians have lost their lives in Afghanistan and we know that, sadly, the toll of young lives is still likely to grow. Like many in this place I could not help but be moved by the tears shed by Andrew Wilkie in his emotional tribute to the fallen in Afghanistan. We cannot presume to measure the grief of those who have lost their sons in the service of our country, but we can and will honour their sacrifice.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was impressed by the speeches of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Rather than repeating their words I am seeking today to add to the debate. The men and women of the RSL declare in their motto that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. These men and women, who have risked their lives for our country, have themselves defined the regrettable justification for war. The liberty that the RSL talks of is not limited to freedom within Australia. It extends beyond our borders and to those beyond our community.

In Oruzgan province in Southern Afghanistan our presence is helping to protect and encourage the liberty of the Afghan people. We are helping to build a nation that can control its streets, feed its people, educate its community and deliver liberty to the oppressed. We are helping good people to live beyond the moment and to lay the foundations for a better quality of life—for both men and women.

Afghanistan is a heavily tribalised country and so building a sense of patriotism among Afghans has never been an easy task. Like the people of many areas of Central Asia and the Middle East, many Afghans do not see their first loyalty as being to the central government, particularly if they live in a remote village and only occasionally hear news from Kabul. For many Afghans, most notably in areas in the south and on the border with Pakistan, their first loyalty is to their tribe, their second is to their family, their third is to their religion and somewhere after that they occasionally may have some degree of loyalty to their country. This is where the Taliban gains its power and influence. By asserting control at the local level it has been able to delegitimise nation building and further undermine the tenuous control of the central government. This has led renowned Australian counterinsurgency strategist and confidant of General Petraeus, David Kilcullen, to comment:

The Afghan government is not being out-fought, they are being out-governed.

By asserting a system of control, albeit an authoritarian one, the Taliban has leveraged off the power of tribal communities—tribal communities that are traditionally aligned not with the Taliban but with whomever can best protect their communities. Kilcullen observes further:

Ninety percent of the people you call ‘Taliban’ are actually tribals. They’re fighting for loyalty or Pashtun honor, and to profit their tribe. They’re not extremists. But they’re terrorized by the other 10 percent: religious fanatics, terrorists, people allied to the Taliban leadership shura in Quetta—

the equivalent of a Taliban parliament but not quite—

They’re afraid that if they try to reconcile, the crazies will kill them. To win them over, first you have to protect their people, prove that the extremists can’t hurt them if they come over to your side.

The solution therefore has to involve creating a situation where Afghans feel as if they have a stable civil environment in which to operate. As we found out during the surge in Iraq, this can only be done with a strong military presence that defends the civilian population and builds relationships with everyone from local religious leaders to the young people most vulnerable to Taliban recruitment. An environment needs to be created where the new generation of young Afghan leaders can step up to the plate, democratically assume control and start governing themselves. This goes to the heart of Australia’s modest and sustainable military commitment to Afghanistan.

I am, in part, a member of this place to provide opportunities to my children and grandchildren. For young people in Afghanistan, particularly teenagers, the opportunities we take for granted are non-existent. For a 15-year-old growing up in a remote village, who has never had the chance to go to school, to read or write either his native language or Arabic, the opportunity to pick up a Kalashnikov, strap it to his back and shoot at both Afghan and foreign soldiers is immense. For all their failings, the Taliban are providing opportunities where the Afghan government is not—opportunities that will enshrine extremist and totalitarian beliefs among the next generation. Young Afghans are asking themselves ‘What is the central government doing for me?’ and coming up with nothing.

Young people are not motivated to join groups because of ideology; it is out of fear and a lack of opportunity in their own lives. Many have similarly been indoctrinated by local religious leaders whose knowledge of Arabic, the language of their holy text, is often spurious. Not having the education or self-confidence to challenge these views means the doctrine of their tribal leader prevails without question. A stable Afghanistan can provide an environment where schools can be built, business can start to function and social services can be provided. Ignorance can be challenged through education, and malevolence can be undermined with opportunity. Once education and public order are present in communities right around Afghanistan, joining groups like the Taliban or a local militia looks less attractive and less appealing.

Hillary Clinton recently spoke of the three Ds of foreign policy—democracy, development and defence—so any contribution Australia makes militarily must be matched by an efficient and effective aid program. Australia’s aid program to Afghanistan has quadrupled since 2001, from $26.5 million in 2001-02 to $106 million in 2010-11. I was proud to be part of a coalition government that oversaw this substantial increase in aid. However, in recent years the Rudd-Gillard government has preferred to ignore our own region and strategic interests and to focus on Africa in hot pursuit of a non-permanent United Nations Security Council seat. It has given up stability in our region for its own political goals.

This has hampered our aid program in Afghanistan and our supplementing of the work being undertaken by our military in Oruzgan province. The district is trailing most of Afghanistan’s 38 provinces in crucial areas of development such as literacy, public health care and education. We can and we should do more with our aid program in Afghanistan, particularly in Oruzgan province, instead of in areas outside of our immediate strategic interests.

That Afghanistan is well within the area of Australia’s strategic interests is obvious. The current makeup of the region means it is a violent incubator of terrorism—and such a threat could well harm Australia and our neighbours in the near future. Australia cannot afford Afghanistan being a hotbed of terror; more than 100 Australian civilians and military personnel have already lost their lives to terrorism in attacks by groups that—at very least—have a strong association with Afghanistan. Hambali, the former military leader of Jemaah Islamiah, was trained in and received support from Afghanistan for the Bali nightclub attacks in 2002. Afghanistan knowingly harboured al-Qaeda before 2001, under the Taliban, and they would do this again if given the chance.

Australia also has a role to play in developing new solutions to the problems of Afghanistan. All good friends offer advice—and Australians are leading the world in strategic thinking on nation building and strengthening civil society. Australia in Oruzgan province is an exemplar of the transition from an occupying force to a nation-building force. Through the provision of the First Mentoring Task Force, set with the goals of mentoring and supporting the Afghan national army in addition to providing training in essential industries, the contribution that is made by Australian soldiers will remain long after the troops leave. The unit conducts fixed steel and concreting, plumbing and basic construction skills courses and includes a mobile training school offering courses to local nationals in specific vocational areas. In a country where there is a lack of basic skills in construction and secondary industries, this kind of program is sorely needed.

The Afghan government has been disappointing in not creating the conditions where a viable stable democracy can be found. My faith in the Karzai regime, and indeed my faith in our presence in Afghanistan, was sorely tested by President Karzai’s affirmation of the Shia family law that amounted to legitimising marital rape among Afghanistan’s considerable Shiite community. It sadly reinforced unfair cultural stereotypes of the Islamic faith that so many millions of Muslims, from Afghanistan to Indonesia, have aimed to dispel. Thankfully, he declared the approval a mistake. However, my desire to see an Afghanistan where this kind of law is not proposed or passed outweighs my initial disgust.

The presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan should not be determined by Karzai’s leadership, as it is my hope that all future governments, at all levels, will be more reflective of the Afghan population as a whole and give the people more reason to believe and trust their government. The Afghan government has been let down time and time again by the offensive actions of Hamid Karzai and his corrupt and incompetent administration.

Karzai’s reaction to domestic and international criticism has been truly heinous and is in direct contradiction of the values that our troops in Afghanistan are aiming to instil; however, that underscores the importance of the job we are doing and the need to stay in rather than leave Afghanistan. We need to play our part in creating the next generation of politicians, diplomats and teachers so Afghanistan can be governed centrally, transparently and with a level of public accountability similar to that which we expect here in Australia.

Transparency International ranks Afghanistan as one of the most corrupt nations in the world, scoring it 1.3 out of a possible 10 and ranking it 179 out of 180 in its annual corruption perceptions index. This corruption needs to be rooted out of Afghanistan from the top. President Karzai has had his fair share of allegations levelled against him about his own behaviour, but the inability of his government to tackle corruption is of more concern. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime survey released earlier this year revealed that an overwhelming 59 per cent of Afghans view public dishonesty as a bigger concern than insecurity and unemployment. This concern has largely been ignored by the central government in Kabul. As suggested by Gretchen Peters, a recognised authority on Afghanistan and the opium trade, the problem of poppy trade corruption is worse within the Afghan government than within the Taliban.

Afghanistan’s greatest asset is its people. While military metrics may not be achieved at a speedy rate, the optimism of the people, especially the young population, is admirable. This is a testament to the increased troop numbers, a greater global focus and a healthy degree of scepticism and debate about the conflict, both in Afghanistan and abroad. Earlier this year, 70 per cent of Afghans surveyed by the Afghan Centre for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research said that they thought Afghanistan was generally heading in the right direction—that is up 30 per cent on the same poll done the previous year. The economy, poverty and jobs took over as the biggest problems facing Afghanistan this year, and access to basic services such as electricity and medical care is getting better, although there is still room for improvement. Fifty-two per cent of Afghans said that they had good access to medical care—a seven per cent increase on the previous year.

The commitment of successive American governments to protect not just their own liberty but also the liberty of others is unparalleled. If the Americans can show their mission in Afghanistan is necessary and productive, as I believe they have, we have a duty to stay the course and to help our mate. The relationship between Australia and the United States is more than just an agreement or a treaty; it is a friendship forged in the blood of our young. More than 100,000 young Americans are buried in the sand between here and Japan. They fought and died for our freedom as much as they did for their own. Similarly, when 340 Australians died in Korea, when 521 Australians died in Vietnam and when two Australians died in Iraq, we fought with our American mates when so many others had abandoned them or chosen not to fight.

We in Australia need a strong America that shares our values, our aspirations and our security needs. America was instrumental in helping us in East Timor, and on a daily basis we shared intelligence and technology that helped ensure our security in a big and at times unpredictable region. The synergy of vision and values between Australia and the US is undeniable. We share a common view that opportunity is the key to individual success, that democracy is the best way to achieve an active society and that no-one—no matter their sex, race, religion or colour—can be denied basic human rights such as education, the right to vote and free speech. Australia must be there until the job is done. It is painful, it is difficult, it is trying, but liberty and security have no time limits. They require eternal vigilance.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noticed that the member for North Sydney made a comment towards the end of his speech that Australia must stay in Afghanistan until the job is done. One of the difficulties of this debate has been to define what that job is. A number of people in my electorate—I do not know if it is a majority or not—have questioned some of the words that have been used in this building over the last week, such as what ‘staying the course’ means and what the job is that apparently needs to be done. I am sure the member for North Sydney has a view of what that means, but it probably would be useful if the parliament, when we attempt to explain our presence in Afghanistan, explain what the job is and when we believe it will be completed. Many people in this place are presenting fairly open-ended arguments at the moment about the course and the job. As politicians, we create open-ended arguments from time to time so that, when we do make a political decision to adjust our policy positions, we can fabricate a design around a job or a course that has been completed.

Many of us would attach some significance to some of the utterances coming out of Afghanistan and out of Australia, the US and other parts of the world that discussions may well take place between the Taliban and traditional enemies the Afghan government and the Americans—and the Australians, I presume—to see if there is a way of solving this particular dilemma that the Russians spent so many years trying to solve and to see if talk rather than bullets can actually solve the problem. In that case, ‘staying the course’ may well be a political course rather than a combative course, and one would hope that it does have some legs. Personally, I am a bit sceptical about that. Dealing with some of the people whom we are dealing with over there, and looking at the terrain they are in and the tribal backgrounds that many people have mentioned, is going to make it very, very difficult to superimpose some sort of American or Australian democracy over a nation where tribal backgrounds, hatreds and various positions go back hundreds and hundreds of years. Nonetheless, we are attempting to resolve some of the issues there.

One of the saddest things I have had to do as a member of parliament was to attend a ceremony in Sydney which was a memorial service to recognise the death of a constituent, Michael Fussell. I also attended his funeral in Armidale, which was a very sad experience. I got to see the camaraderie between the people he served with and the way they regarded his parents, his family and the man himself. In a sense, even though it was a tragic death and obviously everyone was very upset about it, it was a celebration of his life and something I will always remember. Michael Fussell died in Afghanistan. He is one of 21 Australians now who have died there. He died supporting his mates, defending what he believed was the right thing to do. He served where his nation asked him to serve.

I would like to pay honour and my great respect to his parents, Ken and Madeline—and I am sure on behalf of all the people in the electorate who still feel for them—on the loss of their son. I would also like to compliment the former Prime Minister and the former Leader of the Opposition—Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull—for the way in which they conducted themselves, particularly when they met Michael’s parents and some of his comrades. The general public tends to be critical of our leaders from time to time—and occasionally they probably need it—and critical of politicians, and we probably all deserve it from time to time too. But those people conducted themselves in a very sincere way in recognising the tragic loss of a young person who had served this nation, and I compliment both of them for the way in which they acted on that occasion. I am sure that the current Prime Minister and the current opposition leader have conducted themselves in the same fashion at the various funerals that they have had to attend.

I am pleased that there is a debate on this war, because I was one of those who felt that the Australian public should have had a greater engagement in the declaration of the last war, the Iraq conflict. As you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia declared war in Iraq prior to the debate about whether we should participate in the Iraq war had even taken place. I think that debate was just starting when we declared war and a lot of people resented that a declaration had taken place before the people’s representatives had had anything to say on the issue. The former Prime Minister, John Howard, used as a precedent the fact that Bob Hawke had not consulted the parliament over the first Iraq conflict. That is all very well. Though I do not agree with that process, it is as it may be. But I think it is appropriate that we have a debate. I have listened to a lot of the contributions in this debate because it is important that the Australian people have their representatives voice their views in the parliament about this particular conflict.

13:29:13

The issue in my electorate revolves around whether people believe we should stay the course in Afghanistan or not. As the representative of the people of New England—and I have not had an enormous amount of mail on this particular issue—I would have to say that the majority of people who have actually taken the time to communicate with me or my office believe that we should not be in Afghanistan for some great period, and some believe that we should be removing our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Staying the course may well mean that we do have an early exit in some shape or other, particularly if political negotiations actually do start to make some progress. I may well get more communication from people within my electorate after having just made that comment, but by far the majority of people in the electorate who have taken the time to comment on this issue, who have great regard, as I think we all should, for the troops who have served and are currently serving there, believe—and some quite strongly—that, on balance, we are better out of Afghanistan and should not remain there for some great period.

So, in some ways I disagree with the Prime Minister’s comments that put a decade time line on participation, with not a lot of substance to how that time line was arrived at. I know that a number of speakers have spoken about the non-military side of assistance in Afghanistan. As someone who has farmed in dry areas and has given a little bit of technical assistance to some very dry parts of the world in the past, I think there are a number of things we can do. A number of speakers have spoken about health care. Showing that we actually do care for the people is a good thing, but we can assist with their agriculture—particularly in Afghanistan, a very harsh and rugged environment. Obviously a lot of the historical conflict has involved various warlords and tribal leaders and access to various products and markets that make some wealthy and others poor. In a lot of cases the traditional farmer, in some parts of Afghanistan, if not all, has been at the lower end of the wealth spectrum and has been terrorised to a certain degree by certain warlords from time to time.

So I would support agricultural assistance and other forms of assistance into the future. However, I would argue that if there is a way to avoid a convoluted conflict that drags on and on and on, as has occurred in other parts of the world in recent memory, we as a nation will have to really explain, in a much better way, why we persist in being involved in this conflict.

I will conclude my remarks—and I know there are a number of people who want to speak before question time—by saying that if anybody in the electorate is interested in this topic, I would be very interested in receiving their messages. But by far the majority of people who have contacted me would argue that the quicker we are out of Afghanistan the better.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be here today to make a contribution to this debate on our involvement in Afghanistan. I welcome the debate, but I will begin by saying that our Australian troops are heroes. They not only are heroes at home but are respected by allied forces across the globe as the best in the business. They work hard, they act compassionately and professionally and they represent our country with both pride and distinction. Australian troops have put their lives at risk in this conflict. Those fallen are not forgotten, and the 21 soldiers who have paid the highest price in being killed in action in Afghanistan certainly have not been forgotten by this grateful nation. Another 151 have been wounded, predominantly by IEDs. Wearing an armed services uniform is the most honourable and the toughest way to serve your nation. Our troops in Afghanistan have done admirably.

The real question in this debate is: should we be there? I will answer that question with two reasons we should be there. First of all is the ANZUS alliance. Australia is a member of the ANZUS alliance, and proudly so. The alliance has served us well since the Second World War. We have heard other speakers say that the role of the United States in conflict in other areas of the world is not one that they necessarily agree with, but this alliance has served Australia well. In this theatre, in the Southern Hemisphere, the United States is our greatest strategic friend. But we cannot be a friend who turns on and off our affection or, in this case, turns on and off our support to our coalition or alliance partner. As one who has been into the Middle Eastern zone on a military deployment—dare I say with yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper—I will say that we noticed the Americans in action. They do the heavy lifting in these areas.

There is a coalition in Afghanistan. A lot of people in the electorate quite mistakenly think that there are just a few nations involved in this UN force that has been invited to Afghanistan by the Afghan government and sanctioned by the UN. It is not just the United States, it is not just Britain and it is not just Canada and Australia. There are more than 46 nations involved.

I will list some of the countries whose participation might possibly surprise people listening, even those from my electorate. There are about 740 Turkish troops; Georgia contributes 925; Denmark contributes 730; Belgium contributes 575; Bulgaria, a former Eastern bloc country, contributes 540; and the Czech Republic in the same vein contributes 500. I could go on. More than 40 nations contribute to this action. Australia has responsibility in Oruzgan province and we are doing the job exceptionally well.

I was very pleased to note that the Prime Minister, in her contribution to this debate, committed her government to staying the course. Without going to the exact words, she said something to the effect that it could take a decade. Yes, it may well take a decade to achieve the goals of this operation. We are pleased that this debate has fleshed out the real feeling of the Australian government and its representatives about our commitment to this operation.

I know that there are different points of view. On our side of the House, there are different points of view. We have also heard the high profile points of view of the member for Denison and the member for Melbourne on this. I find the Greens policy on this issue very concerning. For example, the Greens believe that we should not be involved in any conflict but should have good faith negotiations instead of a military solution. Can you imagine? The terrorists would laugh their heads off at the idea of us sitting down and having a good faith negotiation with them—them with a Kalashnikov in hand and us with an olive branch. It just does not happen that way. There is a saying that goes, ‘Evil prospers when good men do nothing.’ They rely on us being a soft touch. The Greens policy on this just does not hold up. As part of their policy, the Greens also want us to withdraw from the ANZUS alliance, which would have dangerous implications and ramifications for Australia.

Should we be there? Yes. We are a member of the ANZUS alliance and it is our duty, with the other alliance members, to do our job. The second reason why we should be there is because we need to make sure that Afghanistan does not become a failed state. It was heading towards becoming a failed state when al-Qaeda started using it after the Russians had left due to essentially being defeated. Al-Qaeda decided that it was a good terrorist training ground. That was becoming a concern. We know that 9-11 precipitated strong views on the role of al-Qaeda in terrorist actions all around the world. These sorts of failed states, which were being used as terrorist training grounds, required strong action.

If you think that it does not affect Australia, while Afghanistan is a long way away, the long arm of al-Qaeda reached as close to home as Indonesia in the attacks in Bali in which 88 Australians were killed and in the bombing of our embassies. Last week, our security experts confirmed in a briefing that they are continually monitoring terrorist threats to Australia. Let us not think that because we have not had a terrorist attack on Australian soil that their intentions are not those of ill will.

We are there to help this nation by both training their forces and providing security. Our soldiers are doing a fantastic job in training both the civil police and the military and enabling them to eventually reach self-determination. One of the greatest thing that has happened in Afghanistan—and this is true even though we do not like the fact that there appears to be a good deal of corruption in the leadership and appeared to be corruption in the recent elections—is that they are now trying to head towards a democratic solution rather than a military one or a solution in which the terrorists and the militants take over.

Australia as about 1,550 personnel based in Afghanistan. There are about another 800 deployed within the Middle East. This contribution is one that we are very proud of as a member of a team of 40-plus other nations. Progress in this region is very tenuous. Pakistan has their own security issues with terrorist groups. Somalia is an area of concern for the rest of the world. We have good knowledge of the marshalling of terrorist groups in Yemen. Australia must stand firm by its commitment.

In a recent battle—one that was highlighted because of the emails sent afterwards—a force of about 40 Australian and Afghan troops took on a force of about 80 to 100 Taliban. It was not one of our best victories; it certainly was not a Long Tan type victory, where a small group held off a large group. As the emails have pointed out, our resourcing was not the best that it could have been. We need to address that. There are concerns. I know that there has been much debate on this, so I will not go into it explicitly. One of the things that we cannot rely on is omnipresent American and other air support. We need our own hardware—helicopters et cetera—to make sure that we have the necessary support.

Australian troops are in Oruzgan in both a training and a security role. The only way that we are going to win this war is by winning the hearts and minds of the locals. The hearts and minds of the locals will only be won if we provide them with another way—a better way—of living their lives and operating their communities. We are helping to provide education and health infrastructure. We are helping them with alternative crops to poppies—the poppy seems to be the cash crop of the nation. We are moving them to real agriculture, providing irrigation et cetera so that they can move to alternatives. These are real ways to indicate to the locals that we want to help them move Afghanistan away from being a violent environment.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Canning will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

(Quorum formed)