Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Opening this parliamentary debate on 19 October, I said:

I know the professional soldiers of the Australian Defence Force are proud people. They offer their lives for us. They embrace wartime sacrifice as their highest duty. In return, we owe them our wisdom. Our highest duty is to make wise decisions about war. I look forward to the deliberations of this  parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. I hope we do our duty as well as they do theirs.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, sounded a similar note when he said:

Our job is not to persuade people to like the work our armed forces are doing, but they need to understand it and be able to support it … Our challenge this week is to be just as effective and professional in our tasks as our soldiers are in theirs.

On this at least we are at one.

Many Australians have told me that they think the parliament has done the right thing by finally debating our commitment to the war so openly. So the government has sought to paint a very honest picture of our mission in Afghanistan. We do face real difficulties and challenges and we have sought to share our best judgment. There will be many hard days ahead but we are cautiously encouraged by what we have seen.

Australia has two vital interests in Afghanistan: (1) to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin, and (2) to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. I have discussed the long course of events in Afghanistan since 2001, good and bad, already in this debate. But I also said I believe we now have the right strategy, an experienced commander in General Petraeus and the resources needed to deliver the strategy. Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists.

The main focus of the Australian effort in Afghanistan is directed towards Oruzgan province. In Oruzgan, Australia’s substantial military, civilian and development assistance focuses on training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade to assume responsibility for the province’s security, building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions and helping improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver core services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people. Australia has increased our troop contribution by 40 per cent in the past 18 months and increased our civilian contribution by 50 per cent, including in police training. The 4th Brigade is becoming an increasingly professional force. Our best judgment is that we are on track to complete our training mission in two to four years.

A number of criticisms of the international strategy and the Australian government’s policy have been made in this debate. That was rightly part of the purpose of this debate. So I welcome the opportunity to respond to them today. Some members have argued that there is no progress on the ground in Afghanistan. I do not agree. Our military assessment is that increased operations are reversing the momentum of the insurgency and extending the reach and capacity of the Afghan government into areas long held by the Taliban and their allies. These security gains are being matched by progress in training the Afghan National Security Forces, which are slowly becoming more capable. The economy is growing and there is improvement in basic health care, education and infrastructure. We face a resilient insurgency and the situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, serious and dangerous, with the potential to revert, but our cautious optimism is justified.

Some members have argued that we have already been in Afghanistan nine years and that the time frame the government now envisages is too long. To this, I say first let us be realistic. In the future, when we look back on the years since 2001, no-one will deny that international attention turned heavily to Iraq. Second, while it has taken too long, there is now a strategy to achieve a transition. To do that, we need to put the Afghan security forces in a position where they can take the lead on security. Some members have suggested that Australia’s mission is unclear and that we cannot define what success would mean in Afghanistan or that we cannot achieve the goals we have set for the mission. I disagree. We have a credible, achievable task—one where some progress can already be seen. Some members have argued that we should leave Afghanistan because al-Qaeda is no longer there and the threat is somewhere else, in countries including Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. We must remember that, while we have made progress in Afghanistan, if we stop military operations now the country would remain at risk of becoming a safe haven for terrorists in the future. That said, I certainly agree that extensive international cooperation to counterterrorism is needed and Australia does contribute to these global efforts.

Some members have raised concerns for the likelihood of an enduring political settlement. Most Afghans agree that the Taliban regime should never be returned to power and that is certainly our policy. Reconciliation will only work if it is an Afghan led process. Yes, there have been preliminary signs that some senior Taliban leaders may be considering the path towards negotiations, but reconciliation will be long, complex and inevitably subject to setbacks.

A number of members have raised questions about the structure of our forces in Afghanistan and the protection available to our soldiers and our civilians in the country. I have no complaint that parliament scrutinises the government’s decisions in this area. It is a grave responsibility. Australia’s forces in Uruzgan are structured to include a range of critical capabilities. Not all capabilities are, or need to be, provided by the Australian Defence Force. Many capabilities are provided through the international force as a whole. Australian troops now have access to more artillery and mortar support than they did a year ago and they have access to attack helicopters and close air support from fighter aircraft when necessary. In this area of policy we accept the professional advice, but the government decides. This is a matter we keep under constant review as circumstances change and the insurgent threat adapts and evolves. Under current conditions our troops have the right support for the mission they have been assigned. I am satisfied that our force protection posture is appropriate.

Today, I leave Canberra for the Lisbon summit on Afghanistan. I believe that it is important to be there. Australian soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Australia has vital interests at stake in the campaign in Afghanistan and Australia fought hard for the principle that decisions on the campaign in Afghanistan could not be made by NATO members alone. In Lisbon, Australia’s voice will be heard by world leaders including President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel. President Karzai will attend the Lisbon summit and so too will the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.

Speaking for Australia I will argue for two main outcomes: first, a credible and conditions based strategy for transition to an Afghan led security by the end of 2014. If leaders at Lisbon endorse such a framework, then commanders on the ground working with the Afghan government can provide the detailed planning on when and where transition will take place. But let me be clear: transition refers to the Afghan government taking lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014 and Australia will remain engaged. Secondly, I will argue for a commitment by the international community not to abandon Afghanistan. We must give the new international strategy time to work and we must recognise that after transition the support training and development task will continue in some form through the decade at least. I also expect there to be a clear focus on governance in Afghanistan and on the role of Afghanistan’s neighbours, particularly Pakistan, in the Lisbon discussions. We expect the Afghan government to meet its commitments to improve governance and the delivery of basic services and to combat corruption.

The international strategy depends on an effective partnership with Pakistan to address violent extremism in the border regions that threaten both Pakistan and Afghanistan. At Lisbon I will look forward to a progress report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Sedwell. From my own discussions with General Petraeus, I know he will also be frank that the progress is fragile and that we can expect setbacks. I will be frank as well. I go to Lisbon to state this clearly: Australia will not abandon Afghanistan; Australia will see the mission through.

The parliamentary debate began four weeks ago in a full House and before a full public gallery. I explained the government’s policy; Mr Abbott explained the opposition’s. The gravity of the debate reflected the gravity of the war itself. The House witnessed passionate and poignant contributions both for and against the war. There is goodwill and love of country on all sides of this debate and no-one in the House denies the terrible human cost of our decisions. The war has seen more tears outside the parliament than in it. The House also heard a strong and considered case for our commitment from the majority of the people’s representatives. I was proud of the contribution of the government members, in particular those of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Afghanistan dominated the news media and public discussion for days, but debate moved on, in public and in the House. As I observed that gradual change, I became determined to conclude the debate on behalf of the government. I believe that I should be here at the end of the debate, just as I was at the beginning, and that the nation’s attention should not long waver from the war.

Nine years after the attacks on New York and Washington, the war in Afghanistan has been long. We are not weary, but we must be very realistic about the future. Transition will take some years. Good governance in the country may be the work of an Afghan generation. There will be many hard days ahead. We will be engaged through this decade at least. But I am cautiously encouraged by what I have seen. I go to Lisbon confident that I speak not only for the government but for the parliament and the people of Australia when I say Australia will see the mission through.

Question agreed to.