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

I continue my speech by reminding the House that the war in Afghanistan is one in which Australia has a proud history in its contribution. But I point out, as I was doing just before I resumed, that the locals are actually taking the initiative themselves, whether that be in alternative farming methods or in their own education and health care. One of the pleasing aspects is the fact that the local tribespeople are now seeking the support of the NATO backed coalition to drive out elements of al-Qaeda in their areas and to take back their villages and their safety from this force. That needs to be noted, and it is obviously one of the goals that our troops in our mission areas are trying to achieve.

Western Australia is the home of the SAS as well as many other troops who are making a contribution to this conflict. A number of them have contacted me regarding the reasons why the troops are there and continue to want to be there. Many of them have done a number of rotations. Some of the reasons are, obviously, that they have trained for this particular situation, they are experts in their field and they see this as the fulfilment of their careers. Many people have more than one son or daughter serving in this region. The only comment they have made is that they sometimes believe that eight months is too long for the rotation and that four to six months, particularly for those with families, might be more beneficial.

I need to report to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that yesterday members of the Mandurah RSL—and this is in line with the comments from the member for Cowan about United Nations Day—pointed out to me that were they annoyed not only that we have 1,500 men from Afghanistan heading towards the northern former military camp but also that this is almost the exact number of troops we have deployed in Afghanistan. They wanted me to pass on the message that this should be not a camp for transition for those seeking asylum—who are all, largely, young men. We should be training these asylum seekers to go back and help take back their own villages, their own country, rather than seeking asylum in Australia.

I think this message is shared quite universally throughout the RSLs and throughout the community in general: ‘To those men who are seeking Australia as a destination we are happy to train you, as we are in Afghanistan. If you come here we will train you as well. You should go back and help defend your country because our troops are doing it there for you and you might want to make the same contribution yourself.’ When I was on the deployment which I spoke of earlier I met a young Perth lieutenant, David Uphill, who was in Kuwait, and I know the sacrifices that these young men and women make to serve their country, particularly as reservists. I am just so proud of the young Australians who are involved. Our exit strategy is to leave when our goals have been achieved. I want to conclude by saying that we honour those who make the sacrifice in this theatre. We honour those who have been wounded and we honour all our troops on the ground who are making us proud.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Afghanistan war. A country’s decision to go to war is amongst the most significant that any nation can make, especially in the light of sacrifices made by armed forces in the theatre of conflict, where the costs of war are invariably high, borne immediately by the young and the brave but felt by generations ongoing. I also welcome the opportunity because it is in this forum that debates about something as serious as war should take place. Along with other members I place on record my appreciation of the role played by members of the Australian Defence Force and associated personnel. They are in a hard, risky and unforgiving environment and we acknowledge that fact here in parliament.

If you are interested in public life, the chances are that you will have thought a lot about the nature of war. I know that I have: it’s history, causes and consequences and the universal yearning that we have for peace. These are important matters. Whilst I would not describe myself as a pacifist, I do believe that to endeavour to forge peaceful relations and to use every effort to resolve conflict and arguments, especially betweens nations and most especially when the conflict is violent, is one of the most important tasks any society can set itself, through the way in which we approach this issue locally in education, governance, legislation, the values of our institutions, right through to the international arena. In this debate, we need to be mindful of our historical role through two world wars, our active participation in the United Nations and in peacekeeping efforts in our region, and I note also in an area of keen interest for me, Australia’s continuing role in proposing genuine nuclear disarmament initiatives. Whilst little remarked on, this is a constructive contribution that we make and one of continuing significance world wide.

In relation to the war in Afghanistan and Australia’s role in that conflict, I would like to make the following observations. The first is that, by normative standards, this war began as a just war. Given the genesis of the Afghanistan effort, with the events of September 11 and the hosting of al-Qaeda by the Taliban regime, it is a conflict that does not in my view equate to, as some have suggested, Vietnam or Malaya. It contains its own distinctive set of circumstances, yet it certainly conforms to the just war criteria. Additionally, it was joined by many, it was sanctioned through the United Nations Security Council and, notwithstanding some withdrawal of troops from countries such as the Netherlands, it remains a genuine multilateral effort. Australia’s role and the rationale that underpins it have been spelt out here already by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence and others.

Ascertaining that a war is just is the right starting point for any debate about the Afghanistan war. Secondly, the goal of containing terrorist activity is—again, one of the rationales for our participation in the war—in our national interest, both as a country committed to universal human rights and democratic systems of government and as a people having experienced the full horror of terrorist acts. The fact is that terrorism has changed the risk equation for individuals, communities and nations. Terrorism is delivered through a fundamentalist prism, where no account of proportion, just cause, impact on civilians or other related matters occur. While the question around the capacity of al-Qaeda to again utilise Afghanistan is the subject of vigorous debate, given al-Qaeda’s utilisation of other countries and locations, the task of countering and containing terrorism remains a priority when seen through the wider lens of world-wide fundamentalist Islamic efforts. The third point—and the one I want to focus on here—is that what begins as a just war must have a just transition out of diametric conflict and, hopefully, eventually come to some form of stable governance. It is here that the debate about Australia’s role is crucial. For some, the existing shortcomings of the current Karzai government as well as the stuttering progress of military operations provide reason enough to get out. Whilst it is true that this is an operation that has not, despite some regional progress, achieved any substantial resolution—I do not consider this is a winnable war in the sense that that term is usually understood—it does not mean that an immediate withdrawal would assist. Indeed, it may well have the opposite effect. Whilst there are now efforts to bring together the Taliban and the Karzai government in discussions, there is recognition that, as in the words of Retired Army Chief Peter Leahy:

We are not going to solve counterinsurgencies like this with only military means.

He went on to say:

… it’s essential they talk to everybody who’s involved…

This does not mean that the efforts of building capacity, despite the huge obstacles in Afghanistan, should immediately cease. Furthermore, given the commitment by President Obama to start withdrawals at a future nominated date, it is hard to imagine that a peremptory exit by Australia would not add to rather than lessen the difficulties faced, given we are aiming to replace, in part at least, some of the positive measures which the now departed Netherlands forces were involved in.

It is the case that Australia’s role has been prominent in Oruzgan province, where we have primary responsibility in leading the provincial reconstruction team. There are 1,550 personnel involved in the monitoring and reconstruction task force and special operations task group and around 50 civilians working in Afghanistan more broadly and 20AFP officers, 10 defence civilians and nine AusAID personnel and DFAT officers in Kabul, Kandahar and Oruzgan. Whatever the scale of achievement—and, yes, the aimed improvements in law and order, governance, training and the provision of services in both the education and health fields, as well as advice on the crucial task of getting the economy up and going are at this time incremental—the fact is that they are real gains. They are gains that need to be secured, contained and continued in the wider context of an overall settlement of the Afghanistan conflict. That is the key issue. If, as I believe, there is sufficient reason to continue our involvement then it is essential that it contributes in the coming period to meeting the critical needs of what, after all, is one of the poorest nations on earth.

As the local and regional diplomatic effort continues, we should build those efforts aimed at helping communities rebuild, especially with enabling local communities with better health and education support and facilitating an enlarged NGO capacity and delivery of aid. Here education is of vital importance. The years of conflict have left not only a depleted civil service but many schools without teaching resources, teachers and, in numerous cases, even buildings. I saw one statistic that referred to more than half the school dwellings in a province being destroyed or non-existent. Afghanistan envisages education as the right of all citizens. It has developed a national education strategic plan—now in its second iteration—which focuses on teacher education. Given that around three quarters of the Afghanistan budget is made up of overseas aid, the focused delivery of aid to address these urgent needs and, in this case, particularly education, is a clear priority.

Here Australia’s aid commitment, which has increased off a low base to some $100 million, can make a difference. While it is dwarfed by the military budget, it can and should be maximised in delivery at this time. There is merit in the suggestion that, coming out of the Timor exercise, where different agencies have liaison officers to facilitate greater cooperation between them, we should continue to build on these liaison roles. Given the range of immediate challenges on the ground in a strife torn country where basic services are negligible, it is critical that increasing integrated program delivery—civilian and military, and between agencies and NGOs—can happen in the short term.

I note in passing the suggestion from ASPI that, for instance, predeployment training be undertaken for all personnel in local Afghan culture, law and customs. I know there is already some training of this kind, but we should give special consideration to ensuring that those personnel who are deployed are well acquainted with those cultural issues. We also should give consideration to the kind of expertise that is best suited for Afghanistan at this stage, especially in areas like dryland farming where Australia has much to offer.

Finally, one cannot depart this debate without noting the important human rights dimension that attaches to our involvement in Afghanistan. I note that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, amongst others, raised this when they spoke, but we do have a moral responsibility to consider carefully the consequences of offering any opportunity to the Taliban or any regime for that matter that might see an escalation of the human rights abuses that have characterised the recent history of Afghanistan, particularly those regrettably against women. Amnesty International has noted that:

The Taleban have a record of committing human rights abuses - and abuses against women in particular …

and show

… little regard for human rights and the laws of war and systematically and deliberately target civilians, aid workers, and civilian facilities like schools (particularly girls’ schools).

For regions such as Oruzgan where female literacy levels are non-existent, such a return would be a calamity visited on a people who have already suffered much. It is clear that in the future we will need to develop additional international legal frameworks to combat terrorism. Some have suggested a new form of Geneva Convention where a legal basis for international terrorism is established. For the moment, we need to recall that one of the harshest lessons of war—and the ensuing damage, tragic losses and painful and sometimes extended end game—is that, once countries exit, if they have not carefully thought through the consequences or left in place something for those who remain to build on, the tragedy of war is compounded. There are no easy victories or immediate solutions in this conflict but Australia, as it stays the course for now, should continue to provide the best support it can to a terribly important country whose good days surely lie ahead if peace can eventually emerge from this difficult and fractured era. I dearly hope that it can.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to make a contribution to this debate about the Afghan war. I think it is the most important debate that we are having because Australians as a nation do not glorify war. We are not a warmongering society. I know that no-one in this parliament glories in the notion that we are currently at war in Afghanistan. This fact is borne out for me almost every day in my electorate, where driving around the 52 small towns brings me face-to-face with the war memorials and the cenotaphs. A lot of them are the only things still around in tiny towns where there is just a closed public hall and, usually right outside, a big granite cenotaph. These cenotaphs, of course, commemorate the dead, mostly from the First World War and some from the Second World War.

The point about those cenotaphs is that they are a place of mourning loss; they are not a place of glorifying great victories. When we do have statuary associated with these memorials and cenotaphs, it is invariably of a soldier with a bowed head obviously mourning the loss of his mates who have died in battle. So we are not a country that glorifies war; we never have been and we never will be. On the other hand, we are a country that always steps up, never expects others to do our heavy lifting, that is always there for our allies and is there to help keep peace wherever we can or to fight back tyranny when it comes near us or threatens others like us.

This is an important debate for restating what the nature of our engagement is in the rest of the world when it comes to deploying our Defence Force men and women. I stand proudly here too as the mother of a major in the Australian Army and as the daughter of a mother and father who served as volunteers in the Second World War and as the granddaughter of a light horseman who served in the First World War as a volunteer. But these are very typical antecedents of people who live in country Australia. Very often generation after generation volunteer and some return maimed, disabled physically and often also with mental health issues to deal with. But, of course, many do not return at all.

I have to say that in my experience very recently at Al Minhad, which is the place of deployment for our Australian Army, Navy and Air Force into Afghanistan and the Gulf, I was hugely impressed at the calmness, the professionalism and the stoicism of the Australian men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Some of them are in supporting roles and will never be going forward into the combat zone but they do essential work, whether it is in intelligence, in communications technologies, in pure administrative work or in supplying the people going forward.

There is a whole raft of jobs that are done by those who do not get the glory of the action when it comes to being on the ground but who are essential and no less often stressed, being so far from home and being in conditions that are institutionalised, where their own personal freedoms have been absolutely exchanged for their duties for their country. Those people in Al Minhad were often older people, in their later 20s and 30s, with officers older again. Almost all of them that I spoke to had families back in Australia, and those families too make an enormous sacrifice. We must always remember the wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters and partners left when any of our Defence Force goes forward and carries out the will of the people of Australia via the directions of this parliament.

I was concerned, though, in talking to some of the psychologists and others on the base. They of course spoke strictly professionally and appropriately to us, who were visiting parliamentarians wanting to know how we could help. I think it is important that the Australian government ensures, through our defence forces, that the very best decompression, as they sometimes call it, is offered to our serving men and women when they are leaving their deployment of, say, six months or longer. Indeed, even when they are just taking a break during their deployment we should ensure they do not just spend those few days on a base—in this case, Al Minhad in the Emirates—which is still not like a normal society. They are still surrounded by people all in uniform and under strict regimes. There is no alcohol on the base, of course, and they are still many hours away from their families.

I was impressed when I spoke to the Dutch, who were in the process of withdrawing at that stage. They talked about how their troops, when they are in a decompression stage—in other words, leaving deployment—went off to Cyprus and spent several weeks there in the company of chaplains, counsellors and other support people. Their family could be with them, they could be exposed to a normal tourist holiday type venue, behave like ordinary people out of uniform and have a real chance to readjust. If we could do something like this for our serving personnel, it would give them a better chance to try and get their thoughts in order before they stepped off the plane in Darwin, Sydney or Adelaide and into the arms of their loved ones waiting for them. It is very important that we look at how we are going about the task of ensuring that post-traumatic stress is absolutely minimised when it comes to our great Australian Defence Force personnel. We expect so much of them and we are beginning to learn more and more about the stresses that can affect any human being and can recur years later if there is not proper support given at the right time.

We have experience in Australia of a great group of our Defence Force personnel coming back to this country who were not fully supported by the government of the day, were certainly not supported by the media and were not supported by many in the population. They were our Vietnam War returnees. They are still scarred, many of them, by the experience they had, where they were spat upon, abused and called baby killers. I know that is a long time ago now—some 40 years or so for some of them—but the scars they carry because of a non-caring, misunderstanding Australian public will be with them forever. So it is very important in this debate in this place that we restate very, very carefully—from the government side, from the opposition side and from the crossbenches—that we are proud of the work, the commitment, the courage, the stoicism and the sacrifice of Australian Defence Force personnel who serve in the name of this nation. We are proud of their conduct when they are deployed in other places. The reputation of Australians at war and in peacekeeping is amongst the best in the world in terms of our civilian interface and our adherence to understanding the rights of others in such circumstances.

I was very impressed at Al Minhad as I came to understand how we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan. This is a province which has very low levels of literacy and numeracy, where for generations women have not been allowed to be educated and where there is very poor health for all of the population and in particular for women and children. In fact, Oruzgan ranks as one of the least developed provinces in Afghanistan. The literacy rate for females is on or about zero, and it is only 10 per cent for males. We have our trade schools in place, which aim to give young men in particular—at this stage—a skill that they can carry back into their communities, and this is a good thing that we do. I also very strongly commend the work that is beginning to be done and thought about with women in communities. That will obviously be very dangerous work, but we have to understand that, until we have the population understanding that the Taliban is not an alternative that will ever give them freedom and peace, until they believe that categorically, then the war will continue to oppress them.

Over 100 locals have now been trained and over 132,000 square metres of contaminated land has been cleared of mines under our Australian aid programs. We have improved food security through the distribution of wheat and other food items, including take-home rations for female school students—those pioneer women who are going to be educated. We support basic health and hygiene education, providing 1,780 primary school students—34 per cent of whom are girls—with basic health and hygiene education. Australians in Afghanistan, a long way from their loved ones and the comforts and security of their home, are trying very hard to give this war-torn nation a chance to experience some of the peace and security that we take for granted too often in our country. The provincial reconstruction teams are doing an exceptional job. We aim to spend some $20 million in 2010-11 on development assistance.

It is important that Australians understand the full scope of the work that our Defence Force personnel and those we employ through our aid programs are doing in Afghanistan. It is important to understand that this is not going to be a quick fix in a nation that has been war-torn literally for generations. As a nation that embraces democracy, that has enjoyed freedom but understands freedom comes at a price, it is important that we understand and state again and again in this parliament that we will always stand up and deploy our defence forces where we think we can make a difference, where we think that with our allies we can bring peace and security to other parts of the world and where we can make sure our own nation does not have terrorism visited upon it, because terrorism has been allowed to thrive in our near neighbourhood.

I want to state personally on behalf of the electorate of Murray our thanks to the Australian defence forces. Our electorate has long had an association with and supplied our brightest and best to the Australian defence forces. Our soldier settler communities are the backbone of what today is still a thriving food-producing community and our cenotaphs and our memorial cairns, our honour boards inside all of our little country halls and churches, pay lifelong and long-lasting respect to those who looked after our country in the defence forces before this current generation. This has been a very special opportunity for the Australian parliament to restate our respect and our commitment to do our best always for the security, safety and proper resourcing of our defence forces. We need to look at the long-term needs of our forces and of our personnel when they return home. I am sure that there is more we can do in that particular area. I thank the House very much for giving me this opportunity. I hope this debate will be read carefully by our defence force personnel, both those serving and those in Australia, so that they understand the gratitude of our nation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 12 October 2010, the families of Debbie Borgia and her 13-year-old daughter Abbey, Robyn Webster and Louisa Zervos commemorated their loss in the Bali bombings. These four constituents of mine in Grayndler were among the 88 Australians killed by terrorists in the Bali 2002 bombings. Those terrorists were linked to al-Qaeda. As it was with the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, Australia was not isolated from the actions of terrorists just because those heinous crimes took place on another shore. I am reminded by the commemoration every year that we cannot afford to be isolationist in our approach to the global threat of terrorism.

The debate today on the Prime Minister’s statement is an opportunity for every member of parliament to outline their views about our role in Afghanistan. These issues are not easy. These issues are not simple. They never are. I certainly respect the views of those who consider themselves pacifists, as I acknowledge those who want to see our troops immediately withdrawn from Afghanistan. There are many in my electorate who have conveyed that view to me. They are genuine in their views, including some strong personal supporters and indeed members of the Australian Labor Party. I respectfully disagree with their position. I want to quote the words of President Barack Obama when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize last year:

… make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism—it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

There are circumstances where the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of intervention. There are circumstances where we have a responsibility to act. The Second World War was one of those; Iraq was not. I did not support Australia’s involvement in Iraq. I feel privileged to have been part of the Labor cabinet which decided to bring our combat troops home from Iraq in accordance with the commitment we gave to the Australian people in 2007. It is worth reminding the parliament that it was another Labor Prime Minister, John Curtin, who took the courageous decision in the national interest to bring back Australian soldiers from the Middle East and focus our efforts on Asia and the Pacific.

Our mission in Afghanistan is very different from Iraq. My support for this mission rests on three factors. The first of those is the international circumstances. Our engagement in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the United Nations. There are 47 nations serving in the International Security Assistance Force under a United Nations Security Council mandate, including Turkey, Malaysia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. The Security Council mandate was renewed unanimously earlier this month. Labor has a proud tradition of supporting multilateralism through the United Nations. We played a critical role in the establishment of the United Nations. The very idea of an international community would not exist if Doc Evatt and others had not written the Charter of the United Nations at the San Francisco conference in 1945.We take pride in our role as good international citizens.

Progressives have never been isolationist in their attitude to foreign policy. As we speak, Australia is playing a vital role in countries as diverse as East Timor, the Solomon Islands and the Sudan. Our police are playing a role in Cyprus. One of the factors which determined Labor’s opposition to the war in Iraq was the failure to secure United Nations support. The legitimacy of multilateralism is undermined if we pick and choose which United Nations resolutions are worthy of support once they have been carried unanimously. The reason for this international support is that it is responding to the international nature of those who would do our way of life harm. Al-Qaeda and, increasingly, other terrorist groups act globally. Nation states acting alone cannot respond adequately to the threat we face.

I have always repudiated extremist fundamentalism, whether or not it is based on religion and regardless of the religion which is being distorted in its name, whether Islam, Christianity or Judaism. As progressives we should not be more tolerant of extreme views or hesitate to act against fundamentalism simply because those extremists come from another culture. Targeting terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam is not the same as targeting Muslims. The left and the right of politics both need to understand that. Progressives have a proud history of taking on extremists, but some progressives are still living under the shadow of their correct opposition to the Vietnam War. Over time, some of this opposition has turned into a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. It is ironic that, when he proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh chose to quote none other than the United States Declaration of Independence.

Since Vietnam it has been difficult for people on the progressive side of politics to argue the case for any military intervention. However difficult, we must be prepared to analyse circumstances as they are, not as we would like them to be. Indeed, there are some who argue that the war against terrorism is simply a creation of the media or of United States governments, particularly that of George W Bush.

For the families of those affected by terrorism, including those in my electorate, this threat is all too real. It cannot be wished away. Let us be clear what those who seek to impose an extreme and distorted interpretation of sharia law really stand for. They seek to kill people for the crime of teaching young girls to read and write. They seek to kill people who call themselves socialists. They seek to kill people on the basis of their sexuality. They seek to kill Muslims who do not conform to their extremist version of Islam. They harbour terrorists who have targeted Australians and would do so again given the chance. In fact, they seek to destroy the very fabric and stability of global economic and social activity. Under these circumstances, I simply cannot agree that we should just walk away from our responsibilities.

The third reason why I support our mission in Afghanistan is that our commitment is consistent with our ongoing national interest. We have an important role to play in the region. We are providing considerable development assistance to Afghanistan—over $100 million this financial year. We are supporting basic health and hygiene efforts in schools. Our troops and AFP officers are helping to train and mentor the Afghan military and police in Oruzgan province. Our troops are training locals to recognise and remove mines across this province. Supporting these officers and soldiers should be something that all Australians do regardless of their view about our mission in Afghanistan.

We should never again repeat the mistake that was made post Vietnam. These soldiers and AFP officers are serving our nation upon orders from those above, primarily the government of this country. We must respect the role that they play and each and every one of them knows that they have the support of this nation for the courageous work that they do.

Today, some six million Afghan children are enrolled in school. Nearly 40 per cent of these students are girls. Afghanistan’s economic growth has been strong, averaging 11 per cent since 2002—of course, coming off a very low base. That is not to say that progress has been as rapid as we would like. There have been real impediments there. There have been concerns raised about governance issues within the Karzai government. These concerns are very serious indeed and both the Australian and the international community are determined to assist Afghanistan to make substantial improvements on governance as they move forward.

The issue before us today is: what is our role in Afghanistan, going forward? Those who say we should withdraw now must also ask themselves what would happen to Afghanistan if we did. Would the Taliban, al-Qaeda and any number of other fundamentalist groups not try to re-establish themselves as the dominant force in the nation? Would the fighting really stop or would Afghanistan go backwards from the modest progress that has been made?

The challenge ahead is formidable. There is no doubt about that. It is clear that Afghanistan will not become a flourishing prosperous democracy today or the next day. It will take time, and whatever form the nation of Afghanistan takes over time is of course for the people of Afghanistan to determine. But I do not believe that we can abnegate our responsibility to fight terrorism whether on our shores or in Afghanistan. It is not in the interests of global security; it is not in our national interest. It is not what those who lost their lives to terrorism in Bali and across the world would have us do. Nor is it in the interests of those six million boys and girls who are now enrolled in school in Afghanistan. I commend the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a beautiful autumn early morning with lots of sunshine and barely a cloud in the sky. People were on their way to work, enjoying the sunshine or pouring into, or already at, their workspaces at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. All appeared well with the world, with the only apparent jarring note being a foreign voice heard over the air traffic control frequency at 8.24 on the morning of 11 September 2001. The voice said:

We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be okay. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves you will endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

Twenty-three minutes later the Boeing 767 of American flight 11 flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at over 800 kilometres an hour.

How quickly we forget the emotions that ran hot that day—the anger, the confusion, the sadness, the horror of seeing people jumping from hundreds of feet up, desperately trying to escape the flames. And who can forget the collapse of the towers? We forget how determined we were, when the attack was found to have been perpetrated by al-Qaeda, to ensure that bin Laden and his murderous followers be brought to justice, and how we committed to going into Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and prevent al-Qaeda from continuing their murderous ways when the Taliban refused to comply with UN resolutions relating to al-Qaeda.

The problem now is that we have lost our way. The strategic objectives that should be in place—clear, political aims—are not evident either from the Australian perspective or from an international coalition perspective. If we do not know what we are aiming for we are destined never to hit the target. These strategic objectives would allow the military to determine tactical objectives, milestones and the tactics required to meet those objectives. Otherwise we end up with an engagement with no clear end in sight. We also need to ensure that our forces have the capability required to meet those objectives. I will say more on that later.

In addition to the military objectives, there are socioeconomic factors that need to be dealt with; otherwise we will leave Afghanistan saying ‘mission accomplished’ but the nation we leave behind will, in short order, revert to the chaotic failed state it was in 2001. One reason we were successful in Iraq was that Iraq had an educated middle class and a functional bureaucracy. At present neither is in place in Afghanistan. We need to ensure that, in addition to working towards a military victory, we put in place structures for long-term sustainability to put in place a viable nation.

It is said that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. After World War I, the winners were determined, in the words of David Lloyd George, ‘to squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak’. That indeed occurred after the Treaty of Versailles, with massive reparations levied against Germany. These reparations were paid off only this year, almost a century later. This squeezing of Germany was one of the direct causes of World War II.

After World War II a far more enlightened approach was adopted, with Marshall Plan aid and reconstruction authorities. The result was that our enemies became longstanding allies and vibrant democracies. After World War II, Germany and Japan, neither with a significant history of democracy, became two of the world’s great democracies. Albeit the current lack of a functional bureaucracy and educated middle class in Afghanistan, let us ensure that, in that country, the result is more closely aligned with the end of World War II than with that of World War I.

Before I get into the specifics and shortcomings of our engagement in Afghanistan, let me state that I am very concerned about the legal action being undertaken against three of our soldiers. This action has taken far too long and, from what I understand, appears to be more of a fishing expedition than should be the case. We do not want our soldiers, who have to make split-second, life-or-death decisions, to be second guessing themselves due to concerns about the potential legal ramifications of any action they undertake. I am not saying that rules of engagement should be ignored or that illegal action should not be punished, but let us make sure that there are absolutely solid grounds for action against our fighting men and women before taking legal action—rather than using that legal action as a way to adduce information.

My biggest concern about Afghanistan is with the military capability we have in place. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Jennings, CO of the 1st Mentoring Task Force, diplomatically stated:

… we have just about enough to do what we are doing right now.

But he added:

I think it would be difficult for us to take on more tasks than we are currently doing.

The problem is: more needs to be done.

Our special forces appear to be operating predominantly around Kandahar, not Oruzgan where our regular forces are training the Afghan forces. The task we need to achieve in Oruzgan is not just the training of Afghan forces but the reduction of the Taliban threat in the province to a level that the trained Afghan forces would be able to handle comfortably. Problematically, at present our regular forces in Oruzgan are not allowed to even think about engaging the Taliban unless attacked. This means that any engagement of the Taliban will be in circumstances that simply do not favour our forces. Furthermore, if we take any casualties our forces vacate the field completely, which is bad for our morale and does not send the right message to the Afghan troops we are training.

On 24 August our soldiers, in an unmounted patrol with the Afghan forces, were engaged in the green zone of the Deh Rawud region. They were fired upon and we lost a soldier. We vacated the field and apparently have not returned since. I am deeply disappointed that defence advice caused the Prime Minister to choose to criticise Senator Johnston when the senator called for more capability in support of our troops. Lieutenant Colonel Jennings’ statement was instructive and indicates that increased capability is required.

Major General Jim Molan, the only flag ranked officer to have commanded on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, has called for us to send tanks. The fact is that the Canadians did not originally send tanks. They thought that tanks were not suitable and were unnecessary, yet once they sent them they found them to be invaluable. General Molan pointed out that there have been many occasions when the conventional wisdom has been that tanks were not suitable for certain areas, such as New Guinea, Vietnam et cetera, yet they have always proved invaluable.

The need for attack helicopters is illustrated by reports that Dutch Apache helicopters chose to stay 5,000 metres above a firefight—not engaging the Taliban—in which nine of our troops were wounded and one American was killed. That was appalling and clearly demonstrates why we need our own armed reconnaissance helicopters in the area.

Our defence leadership say that this is not required, yet they have asked the Dutch to keep five Apaches in the region due to our own lack of capability. The defence bureaucracy denying that more capability is needed is simply to cover up for the litany of acquisition disasters that are now coming home to bite. The fact is, the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter should have been in full service years ago, but due to bureaucratic ineptitude in defence it is still not in service.

Senior defence leadership have repeatedly banked on our not having to use our capability This has been the case over a period of decades, where acquisition disasters did not seem to matter as the capability was not required on the day. We are now seeing these acquisition blunders, disasters and excuses coming home to roost, and this has to stop. We need comprehensive reform within defence, yet neither side of politics has, historically, been prepared to do what is necessary. Far too often we have simply taken senior defence officials at their word, while they resort to dubious claims that ‘these are complex systems, so you must expect these delays’.

Let us look at a total disaster area—new air combat capability. We keep getting the run-around from defence bureaucrats, yet as a parliament we have not taken them to task for their blatant lies and misrepresentation. Complex systems? Consider the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird, a complex aircraft that cruises at mach 3.5 and at 85,000 feet, and which remains unsurpassed. That aircraft entered service within four years of Lockheed being awarded the contract in—wait for it—1959. That was a far more complex program for the time than the JSF is now, but there were competent people driving the program, led brilliantly by Kelly Johnson. Kelly will be turning in his grave at how the mighty Lockheed have fallen in their core competency.

In 2002 defence were telling us that the JSF would be in service in 2010—but I do not see any—and that they would cost $40 million each. This was blatantly incorrect, and was also deliberate misrepresentation, while we see the likes of Air Chief Marshal Houston, Air Vice Marshal Harvey and Dr Stephen Gumley deliberately using jargon not understood by most to conceal the real pricing. What do we find now? The JSF, eight years on, is still eight years away from service, and the cost will be well over $130 million apiece—now more than the much better F22 Raptor.

The Air Power Australia think tank was giving a far more accurate representation in 2002 and has continued to give a far more accurate assessment of the situation. Their reward? Ad hominem attacks from defence people who should have known better than APA and are embarrassed, I believe, to have had their ineptitude demonstrated publicly. The JSF is not even on DMO’s list of projects of concern. The reason? Because we have not contracted to buy any. But hang on—this botched program has already cost us billions of dollars, due to our paying to be part of the development program and due to the timeline slipping so far that there was concern about a capability gap, leading to the purchase of Super Hornets.

Defence now plans to scrap our fleet of perfectly good F111s. This is an abnegation of responsibility. These aircraft still have magnificent capability, and we can and should keep them in storage for at least 10 years. This could be done for about one-tenth the cost of a single JSF, and should be done. It is very cheap insurance. The JSF is not capable of achieving air supremacy in the time period it will be in service.

I am concerned by the belief system and institutionalised groupthink evident at Defence HQ, and the naive belief that the ‘magic’ of networks and stealth means ‘we will know all’, to quote their evidence to the parliament, and can essentially do all while using otherwise completely inadequate equipment. Indeed, the US is likely to lose air supremacy in the Pacific over the next decade, and anyone wanting to know why should go to You Tube and look up Lieutenant General David Deptula’s 2010 presentation to the US Air Force Association in Washington DC.

I call for comprehensive reform of the Department of Defence and hope that as a parliament we can find the courage that has thus far been lacking in previous parliaments. Our service personnel need real capabilities delivered in timely fashion, rather than misleading bureaucratic ‘explanations’ which we as a parliament have collectively put up with for far too long. If we continue to accept incompetent and misleading advice from the defence bureaucracy, we will end up having to explain why our service personnel are being sent home in body bags.

Finally, I congratulate Stephen Smith, the Minister for Defence, for his most recent direction to the department to use plain language for briefings to the government, the parliament and the people of Australia. For far too long, defence officials have used technical language to confuse, while distracting parliament from the real issues.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.