Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the debate was interrupted yesterday: there is a lot more to do, particularly in the area of countering the threats posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs that the Taliban dig into dirt roads and plant on pathways. In September this year the Minister for Defence and I announced an agreement with the Canadian government to loan three new IED clearance systems. These systems include two Husky vehicles. They are protected mobility vehicles, fitted with ground-penetrating radars that drive at the front of convoys to detect IEDs that are buried in the road. The systems also include one Buffalo mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, which is fitted with an interrogation arm and a Girocam camera to help our combat engineers defuse IEDs more safely. These vehicles are on loan, and they will be on loan for about 12 months from the beginning of 2012. Work is also underway to assess the possible acquisition of a permanent system for Defence. We are also rolling out a new, unmanned aerial vehicle system in Afghanistan called Shadow 200 and Diggerworks, during the course of next year, will also roll out more equipment to assist and protect our troops.

War is never popular, and we should not expect it to be. It is understandable that when an Australian soldier is killed or injured we will question why we are there. This debate is an important opportunity to remind the Australian community why we are there, what we are doing and the progress we are making. We are there to make a dangerous place safer, both for the people who live there and for those who do not. As I said in this debate last year, we cannot pretend that what happens in Afghanistan does not affect us here in Australia. It does, and because it does it is right that we are there. The work our troops are doing in Afghanistan makes us all safer. That is something we should all keep in mind this Christmas as the sun shines over us and the snow falls over the men and women who do this work in our name.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the continuing deployment of Australian forces in Afghanistan. Such actions focus on defeating the threat of terrorism at its source. I have in the past stated in this place that I support the role of our troops in Afghanistan. As an Australian I am grateful for their commitment and service to our country. With Christmas now only five weeks away it is important for all of us to spare a thought for our troops currently serving overseas, particularly those who will not be home with their families this festive season. Many military wives and partners have expressed to me the importance of showing support for our troops. This is seen as a means by which we honour and pay tribute to our soldiers. Our support to those families must be equally unconditional and we must provide to them as much support as they require.

Sadly, we must also remember the families and friends of the 32 brave Australian soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice since our troops commenced service in Afghanistan in 2001. These families celebrate the festive season with heavy hearts, but in some small way I hope the recognition generated from this House offers a degree of support and recognition for them at this time of the year. Additionally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the 213 brave members of our armed services who have been wounded as a result of action in Afghanistan and the families who struggle daily to deal with the ongoing impacts as a result of this war on terrorism.

My electorate has a significant military presence and I take great pride in representing these fine service personnel. I take every opportunity to visit and talk with our service men and women. I listen to their views and concerns, particularly in terms of our ongoing presence in Afghanistan. The consensus, at least in my electorate, is that our role within the Afghan theatre is of vital importance. Our troops tell me about the pride they feel and the value they see in maintaining our presence until the time is right to withdraw.

We as a nation train our troops to take on the roles of warrior and reformer in places outside our own borders. Afghanistan is one such place. Not willing to walk away when the going gets tough, our troops tell me of the importance they feel in applying the training and skills they have gained to overseas deployments. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the footy analogy on this particular issue: you are part of a footy team, you train hard, you develop skills, you learn to work as a team and you learn the game plan but you do not get the chance to play or you remain on the bench. That is why they say to me that it is really important that they go to Afghanistan. This is the same feeling many soldiers have about not being able to put their training to use in overseas deployments. Australian troops reflect the values of our great nation. The work they undertake is demanding and is conducted in dangerous circumstances. The countryside is harsh and inhospitable; the weather is much the same. The rules of engagement are limiting and the enemy resilient. I believe our defence forces are the most highly trained, highly skilled and highly committed and are highly dedicated to the task confronting them. We—and I include New Zealand—have the only defence forces who demonstrate the tenacity and spirit that we citizens outside of the military recognise and relate to: what we call the qualities of the digger and the ANZAC.

Afghanistan has long been a training ground for terrorism through the presence of terrorist training camps and providing a safe haven for terrorist leaders. Australian citizens have not escaped the reach of terrorism. Close to 100 Australians have been killed as a direct result of terrorist activities around the world directed from terrorist safe havens in the mountains of Afghanistan. Some of these attacks have been close to our shores, particularly my electorate of Solomon, including Bali in October 2002, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in September 2004, Jimbaran Bay and Kuta in Bali in October 2005, and the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotel bombings in Jakarta in 2009. September 11 this year marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks in America which killed 2,977 people from 90 different nations. Eleven Australians lost their lives on that day. The anniversary was and continues to be a sober reminder of why our troops must remain in Afghanistan and why we must remain vigilant about international terrorism.

The coalition support strategies whereby, firstly, the joint forces stop Afghanistan from being a training ground and base for operations for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Secondly, we support strategies to stabilise the Afghan state whereby Afghans can achieve self-determination. Achieving this goal will be through a combination of civil, police and military training for local Afghans.

Purely in terms of numbers, Australia's commitment to Afghanistan is modest at 1,550 troops in comparison to other countries. With responsibility for security in a province that has long been the heartland of the Taliban, our troops demonstrate the values of this great nation and have gained the respect of troops from other nations serving alongside them. Operating within Oruzgan province, mentoring the 4th Afghan brigade has been challenging and without incident. Sadly, though, several of our soldiers have paid with their lives the price of training local Afghans to take up responsibility for their own security and self-determination. Our troops willingly take on the task of helping to define a place where safety and security are paramount to its people, a place where reprisals and retaliation, and control by the Taliban and other criminal elements will become a thing of the past. In September 2010, General Petraeus, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan at the time, described the fight as:

… very difficult and sometimes—seeming to be as slow as, again, watching grass grow or paint dry. But nonetheless—progress.

I believe these words address the very essence of our troop deployment and their retention in Afghanistan. Australia undertook the role of providing troops in this conflict for the long term, with the goal of ensuring that when we pulled out we left things far better than they were when we went in. Our troops see this as the defining path of our deployment: the job is not complete until that goal is met. To take any other path would be to walk away. Australians—and in particular our Aussie diggers—do not walk away without completing the job. History repeats the story over and over and over again.

In short, our troops remain committed to their role. Our mission is yet to be fulfilled, but progress is being made. The way ahead is not clear in terms of a definable time line for our deployment to Afghanistan, but we do move slowly towards this goal. I support the retention of our troops in this conflict until such time as we reach and fulfil our goal—at which time we can withdraw and bring our troops home.

I reiterate the importance of recognising our troops and showing them that the people back home are well aware of the work they are doing and appreciate their efforts and commitment. As a small gesture of recognition in my own electorate I have been arranging through my office to send Christmas care packages to our troops currently serving overseas. The appreciation felt by those recipients last year was overwhelming. Many returning troops and families spoke about their gratitude for the small expression of thanks, often from complete strangers. Also, the small gifts—a touch of home—really hit a nerve and in some instances brought great joy to the local Afghan kids. I wish all the troops currently serving overseas a very safe Christmas and pray that the new year brings a speedy resolution to this ongoing deployment so that they may fulfil their obligations and return home safely.

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

I arrive at this place after a great deal of confusion, but I am here nonetheless, to speak on something that is very important and to follow the Prime Minister in her very serious report to the parliament on Afghanistan and in keeping the pledge to the Australian people that we would continue to do that. Julia Gillard said yesterday that we will complete our mission of training and transition. She is right to reaffirm Australia's role in rebuilding Afghanistan and outline the fact that our role in training the Afghan 4th Brigade is going well.

I am not sure whether people picked up the significance of her forecast that the training of the Afghan 4th Kandak, or Brigade, may be completed before 2014. She made reference to the despicable and cowardly attacks on the Australian trainers by rogue elements of the Afghan National Army. We had the very peculiar reference by the local Brigadier General Mohammed Zafar Khan, saying that he would be happy for the Australian troops to leave immediately. It is something that I believe the Afghan government has cleared up, but I believe it is more related to a desire to have access to all the equipment that the Australians would leave, allegedly, to him if they were to depart immediately.

The purpose of this effort, as the Prime Minister outlined, is to see that Afghanistan is not re-established as a base for terrorists and to give evidence of our close alliance with the United States. Our recent VC recipient, Corporal Roberts-Smith, memorably described a counterterrorist mission on AM some weeks ago. He said:

I believe that we—

that is, the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan on Australia's behalf—

are making a difference in stemming the flow of terrorism into Australia, and I want my children to be able to live as everyone does now without fear of getting onto a bus and having it blow up.

That is a corporal in the Australian Army speaking on national radio with such a clear understanding of the mission.

Our role in counterinsurgency in training the Afghan 4th Kandak is obviously dangerous. We lost those three young fellows who were machine-gunned while they were at the end of a parade. They were helping the Afghan security services. The training is going well, as the Prime Minister suggested—and the Australian Army does too. We have been able to hand over 11 patrol and forward bases to the Afghan army. The Prime Minister said there should be no safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan. The operations undertaken in Oruzgan and the southern province of Kandahar are enormously important for the battle against the Taliban. Earlier this year Australian and Afghan troops removed vast quantities of explosives—a topic I will return to in a minute—including an insurgents' cache of over 400 kilograms of explosives and 22 ready-to-use IEDs that were discovered. The Australian people do not want to continue sacrificing our blood and treasure in Afghanistan forever, but it is due to the sustained heroism of our soldiers that we have been able to fulfil this important political task. As the Prime Minister said, we will probably continue to have counterinsurgency special forces there even after the, hopefully, early withdrawal when the 4th Kandak can be stood up and left alone to control Oruzgan province.

Our work in Afghanistan is not the only role we are playing in the region. The Prime Minister mentioned we cooperate with Pakistan in counterterrorism, but Pakistan must do more to counter and fight terrorism within itself, on its border with Afghanistan and in Afghanistan. Every serious person concerned with national security would have been flabbergasted at the famous denunciation of Pakistan by Admiral Mike Mullen, the retiring head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that the Haqqani network, which is one of the terrorist networks, acts as 'a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency'. Worse is the evidence I have seen, which can only have come from the highest sources and which I urge every serious member of this parliament to read, in the December issue of Atlantic Monthly which outlines the rationale behind Admiral Mullen's remarks. The article said:

The September 13 raid on the American Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul—in which Haqqani insurgents besieged the compound with guns and rocket-propelled grenades, killing at least 16 people—had shocked the Joint Chiefs. … the American Ambassador in Afghanistan, "had to spend 18 hours in a bunker to keep himself alive," this source said. "Imagine what would have happened if he had been killed."

This is by a terrorist group run by Pakistan, and I say that with full seriousness. This is an ally of the United States and Australia, a country which gets $2 billion of American taxpayers' money and $119 million of ours. The leaders of Lashkar-e-Taiba live openly in Pakistan. It is outrageous that Pakistan allows explosive factories in Lahore to be the major source of the explosives in improvised explosive devices. Let me repeat that: Pakistan, a country which receives $119 million of Australian foreign aid, provides explosives from its factories to kill Australians and Americans. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is in the interests of Afghanistan, Australia and our coalition partners to have Pakistan counter terrorists in the region. That is very much the case because, as the article in the Atlantic Monthly says:

Most of the world … is very anxious about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and for good reason: Pakistan is an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihadism and it has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to such rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. It is perfectly sensible to believe that Pakistan may not be the safest place on Earth—

that is a nice bit of understatement—

to warehouse 100 or more nuclear weapons. These weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad, a city that, in addition to having hosted Osama bin Laden, is the home to many partisans of the jihadist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen.) Western leaders have stated that a paramount goal of their counterterrorism efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of jihadists.

If there is any place on earth where we have that as a primary concern it is in Pakistan. Since Admiral Mullen made his very judicious, strong and, I would say, very important statement, something strange has happened in Pakistan according to this extremely well-informed Atlantic Monthlyarticle:

… instead of moving nuclear material in armored, well-defended convoys—

The Pakistani military nuclear organisation—

prefers to move material by subterfuge—

To confuse the Americans—

in civilian-style vehicles without noticeable defenses, in the regular flow of traffic. According to both Pakistani and American sources, vans with a modest security profile are sometimes the preferred conveyance. And according to a senior U.S. intelligence official, the Pakistanis have begun using this low-security method to transfer not merely the “de-mated” component nuclear parts—

That is, the different parts that you need to put together before you can assemble them as a nuclear weapon—

but “mated” nuclear weapons.

…   …   …

What this means, in essence, is this: In a country that is home to the harshest variants of Muslim fundamentalism, and to the headquarters of the organizations that espouse these extremist ideologies, including al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba (which conducted the devastating terror attacks on Mumbai three years ago that killed nearly 200 civilians)—

Including two Australian civilians—

nuclear bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads … In other words, the Pakistani government is willing to make nuclear weapons more vulnerable to theft by jihadists simply to hide them from the United States …

Because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. No wonder the Prime Minister said what she did about Pakistan yesterday in the parliament. I understand that she attracted some criticism because of that from Pakistani authorities. I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the rest of the parliament had read this article 'The Ally from Hell', people on both sides of the parliament would have been cheering behind her. I know the opposition is just as responsible as we are. This is a terrible indictment of the government of Pakistan. It is very worrying for any person seriously involved in national security and it is intolerable for Australia to have a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has been repeatedly involved in terrorist missions into Australia. I would suggest that, if you look at the five sets of people who have been arrested, charged and convicted in Australia of terrorist crimes, you would find that all of them have a Lashkar-e-Taiba training connection.

Worse than that were the two Australians who were among the 200 people tragically killed in that disgusting terrorist attack on the beautiful Indian city of Mumbai, the symbol of India's progress and commerce and modernity—something that these people who prefer to live in the sixth century obviously detest. We as Australians warmly welcome India's movement into the modern world and good relations with our country.

I conclude by saying that a withdrawal from Oruzgan province, despite the local politically rogue Afghan brigadier, would leave a security vacuum at this moment. That is not in our national interest or in the interests of our coalition partners. To the families of those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan I say this: your sacrifices have not been for nothing. We honour them by making the ultimate sacrifice in defending democracy, human rights and the rule of law. At the tragic death of one of the boys killed in Afghanistan, Greg Sher, then defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon asked me to be in contact with his family. I have been in constant contact with his parents, Felix and Yvonne, since his passing. Having to attend the ramp ceremony with all of his mates when his body was brought off the Hercules is the worst experience I have had as a member of parliament. Some of his mates were still in their camouflage uniforms and had grown beards so that they would be less observable in situ in Afghanistan.

Australia would not be a democracy today if it were not for the service men and women who fought and continue to fight in our uniform. We pay tribute to all of those who have served and still do serve in our armed services and we pay tribute to our allies who have served with us. We thank them for their sacrifice and know that we live in a free and democratic society because of them.

As chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I will not let up on the Pakistanis until we get to the bottom of the fact that it seems they are training people who are not only murdering Australian servicemen but are trying to penetrate Australia and become involved in terrorist activities. Their government knows where explosives factories are that have produced explosives used in IEDs that have killed Australian servicemen.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her judicious words yesterday. Yes, we will continue the mission in Afghanistan until we can get the Afghan 4th Brigade up and standing, and then leave as soon as possible. We must also be conscious—(Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse the remarks of the member for Melbourne Ports. A good speech. Now is not the time to cut and run from Afghanistan. This is a long campaign and it has been a tough mission. It is a difficult time and it will continue to be so. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.

Australia has paid a high price for its involvement. We lost 11 diggers in 2011, our deadliest year since 1970, when we lost 40 of our finest in the Vietnam War. Since Australia joined Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in October 2001, in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, we have lost 32 diggers: Sergeant Andrew Russell, age 33; Trooper David Pearce, 41; Sergeant Matthew Locke, 33; Private Luke Worsley, 26; Lance Corporal Jason Marks, 27; Signaller Sean McCarthy, 25; Lieutenant Michael Fussell, 25; Private Gregory Sher, 30; Corporal Mathew Hopkins, 21; Sergeant Brett Till, 31; Private Benjamin Ranaudo, 22; Sapper Jacob Moerland, 21; Sapper Darren Smith, 25; Private Scott Palmer, 27; Private Timothy Aplin, 38; Private Benjamin Chuck, 27; Private Nathan Bewes, 23; Trooper Jason Brown, 29; Private Thomas Dale, 21; Private Grant Kirby, 35; Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, 28; Corporal Richard Atkinson, 22; Sapper Jamie Larcombe, 21; Sergeant Brett Wood, 32; Lance Corporal Andrew Jones, 25; Lieutenant Marcus Case, 27; Sapper Rowan Robinson, 23; Sergeant Todd Langley, 35; Private Matthew Lambert, 26; Captain Bryce Duffy, 26; Corporal Ashley Birt, 22; and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, 27—an honour roll of heroes. Young lives taken from their family and friends, taken from their colleagues, who have been left to carry on the courageous work.

The 32 killed in action or by rogue Afghans, the very people they were serving to protect and to mentor, were the best of the best, the bravest of the brave. We can ill afford to lose any soldiers. They are not mere numbers for making up a battalion. They are flesh and blood, just like us. They have hopes and dreams, aspirations to start a family or return safely home to their loving partners and children. The 32 who came home, sadly, to be laid to rest fully knew the dangers of their work when they embarked upon their gallant tours of duty. They were made aware of the deadly nature of their occupation when they enlisted. Military training is hard, thorough, disciplined. The officers at Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka near Wagga Wagga do a splendid job with raw, would-be privates. They turn them into real soldiers—fighters, combat ready, regimented, as good as any in the world. These are the men and women who will serve on the front line to take the ultimate risk if and when asked by their country. These are the men and women who go willingly and unflinchingly to places and operations of obvious danger. They do so for their country, their comrades and the pursuit of peace. They do so very much with the Anzac spirit burning in their hearts, for they know what is at stake: the fact that they place their own lives on the line but also the fact that a greater good can be achieved.

As the opposition leader grimly reminded us yesterday, we have lost 108 Australian citizens in terrorist attacks in New York, Bali and elsewhere—murderous, unlawful acts which can be linked to the indoctrination, resourcing and training at terrorist bases within Afghanistan. We must stay the course in Afghanistan as a mark of respect for those 108 Australian civilians and to prevent further lives being unnecessarily taken, to be true to the sacrifice made by our fallen soldiers and also by the 213 Australian troops wounded in the decade we have been there. To walk away now would be simply to signal to the Taliban that its perseverance has paid off. As the opposition leader told parliament yesterday in response to the Prime Minister's statement on Afghanistan:

The best exit strategy is to win.

The Leader of the Opposition visited the Australian headquarters at Tarin Kowt just last week to reassure our hardy troops that their work is supported, that the progress they have made is appreciated and that their valour is honoured always. The opposition leader said:

… I am naturally disposed to want to see the Australian armed forces usefully deployed in places where they can make a difference.

Certainly we are making a difference with our 1,550 representatives as part of the 120,000-strong coalition force on the ground. He told our soldiers:

… the important thing is that we do not put you in harm’s way without a good purpose and a reasonable chance of success.

Now, obviously, deploying our military to difficult parts of the world in concert with our major allies is a form of being effective of itself. If we are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those who matter in the world that is in and of itself a good thing. But we don’t want to be here just because our allies are here. We want to be here because we are doing good work on the ground: that the Afghan soldiers that we are mentoring are becoming more effective, that the Afghan police that we are mentoring are becoming fair-minded and conscious of the ordinary rules of a civil society. We want all of that to be happening because if that’s not happening we’re exposing you to deadly peril without necessarily getting the return that we would like.

The Liberal-National coalition cares deeply about Afghanistan, just as I know the government, too, has a heavy heart about having Australians far from home fighting in a war which is like no other, which has already lasted a decade and for which we have already paid a heavy price. But, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, there can be no safe haven for terrorists, no opportunity for al-Qaeda to establish training camps from which to generate jihadist atrocities against innocent people, and her words were supported by the opposition leader.

Mercifully, thankfully, much progress has been made since 2001. We can be proud that we as a nation, and our military personnel, have contributed mightily to that progress. According to AusAID, Australia's development assistance program at the national level has achieved the following: support, through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, for the delivery of major national health, educational and rural development programs which have increased school enrolments from around 1 million children in 2001 to more than 7 million today, including 2½ million girls; increased access to basic healthcare services from less than 10 per cent of the population under the Taliban to around 85 per cent today; support of the delivery of more than 45,000 community infrastructure projects in more than 25,000 communities; rehabilitation of more than 10,000 kilometres of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers; the building of the capacity of four key ministries—health, education, agriculture, and rural rehabilitation and development—through an integrated program of scholarships, targeted training and technical assistance; the training of 60 Afghan master teachers in Malaysia, who in turn have so far trained 168 teacher trainers in Afghanistan; the contribution to improved rural livelihoods through research in wheat and maize productivity, resulting in up to a 50 per cent increase in yields amongst targeted farmers; improvements in rural water supply and sanitation, irrigation, rural infrastructure and access to microfinance; and support for the provision of emergency food supplies and humanitarian assistance for vulnerable and displaced populations in Afghanistan. Australia has also supported the safe return and protection of refugees and mine action programs. In Oruzgan, Australia has supported basic health and hygiene education programs provided to 1,780 primary school students, of whom 34 per cent are girls. Australia has trained 38 interns in areas including public financial management, computing, law and general administration to boost the capacity of the provincial government. It has provided equipment for the trade training school at Tarin Kowt and for the Tarin Kowt Hospital. National programs which AusAID supports have also delivered outcomes in Oruzgan. The achievements of these national multi donor funded programs include the Education Quality Improvement Program, which has built 30 schools, with a further 36 under construction. The basic package of health services has supported a provincial hospital, six community health centres, six basic health centres, a health subcentre and 192 health posts. The Microfinance Investment Support Facility has enabled more than 2,000 members in Oruzgan to access loans.

Significantly, the mastermind of so much terror, Osama bin Laden, was killed in a coalition strike on 2 May this year. Justice will catch up with those who perpetrate evil against free people. It has happened across the world in recent times. Australia, as should be the case, will with bipartisan support be an integral part of continued efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere to make the world a better place—more peaceful and hopefully free of random terrorist acts which have robbed so many of so much.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution on the motion to take note of the Prime Minister's statement on Afghanistan by acknowledging the recent visit made by the President of the United States to Australia and the importance of the ongoing alliance between our two countries. I also acknowledge those on the ground serving their country right now, those who have served over the past decade and those who have been wounded or killed over the life of this operation.

I would also like to reaffirm my view on the war in Afghanistan, which is that an explicit and specific exit strategy needs to be articulated as soon as possible and that a process of withdrawal begin between 2012 and 2014. I was pleased by the statement of the Prime Minister. The current publicly stated date for this is 2014 but there was also reference in her speech, as there was in the speech made recently by the Minister for Defence, that the 2014 date may be the outside date required and there may be movement prior to that. I certainly welcome those statements and developments if they can be upheld.

Our commitment comes at a significant emotional and financial cost to all Australians. In financial terms, our strategy in Afghanistan is costing anywhere between $3 billion and $6 billion—and this is at a time when financial austerity measures matter more than they have at most other times. Our 10-year contribution to this war and our open-ended commitment needs to be looked at as to whether it is a cost benefit to our economy not just as a cost benefit to our US alliance or the geopolitical interests of Australia.

In October last year, I rose in this place to acknowledge that after nine years in Afghanistan the lives of 21 Australian troops had been lost, more than 150 soldiers had been injured and at least $6.1 billion of taxpayers' money had been spent. Twelve months later, or 10 years into our commitment, 32 lives have been lost, over 200 soldiers have been injured and there is a trajected spend of $2.3 billion over the next financial year, which is on top of the net additional cost of $4.7 billion over the past decade.

The emotional and financial cost of our commitment is escalating exponentially. The issue of Australia's sovereign interest has not diminished and is still at the core of this debate. I assert once again that the time to commence our exit should begin as soon as possible. The deaths of Australian troops will continue, the financial cost to the taxpayer will continue and the inevitable void and civil unrest that will be left behind will only continue to wait. I again emphasise that we will have to, at some point, accept a lesser democracy than ours and we will have to, at some time, recalibrate to focus on our international obligations to the Asia-Pacific Region, on the many challenges that regional religious extremism and regional terrorism pose, and on what we can and should be doing towards peace and development in our own Asia-Pacific Region.

In June this year, the White House announced that an initial 10,000 troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2011 and that the full 33,000 troops associated with the surge would be out of Afghanistan by next summer. Further reductions beyond these timings were flagged with the goal of transitioning to Afghan led security by 2014. The 2014 deadline originated from the International Conference on Afghanistan held in Kabul in July 2010, at which the Afghan government determined that ANSF should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014.

I acknowledge that the Australian defence forces involved in Afghanistan are doing good work in training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade in Oruzgan province to allow their transition to having lead security responsibility for the province; building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions in Oruzgan; helping improve the Afghan government's capacity to deliver core services and generate economic opportunities for its people; and undertaking activities to disrupt insurgent operations and supply routes utilising the Special Operations Task Group. I also acknowledge the statement of Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, to the Senate estimates hearing in October this year that ADF activities continue to disrupt insurgent operations in Afghanistan. However, I make the same point as I did earlier in this speech: at what cost? I again emphasise that I think the time has come for us not to cut and run but to start doing what most of the coalition countries are now doing and work on a strategy for draw-downs of Australian troops for both financial and moral reasons.

I do not accept the argument that Australia would be cutting and running on our own. If you look at what the various coalition countries are doing, you can see that there are activities going on right now that put Australia at the back end of any commitments to withdraw troops. At the moment, our draw-down—depending on whether you listen to the Minister for Defence or the Prime Minister—is for between 2012 and 2014. Looking at other countries, Belgium have now committed to draw down, commencing at the end of this year, with the intention of withdrawing half their personnel by early 2012. Canada withdrew from combat operations in 2011 and are now taking part in the NATO training mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. Denmark—and we all celebrated Denmark today—is still on a 2014 deadline, with the government recently stating its determination to hand over to the ANA in 2014. Finland is withdrawing between 2013 and 2016, conditional on Afghan forces' ability to take over, with the government assessing this month whether to change that. In France, President Sarkozy announced in June this year that there would be a phased withdrawal plan, with French personnel being gradually withdrawn, with possible completion by the end of 2013. He withdrew 200 personnel during October and will withdraw that many again by the end of 2011. Germany has the intention to commence a draw-down from the end of 2011 but is equivocal about how many and how fast. Hungary has said it expects only small changes to mid-2013 and will work with ISAF on withdrawal. Italy, similar to us, is working towards a 2014 withdrawal. Latvia is also working to a 2014 time line.

I think the argument that is pervading the debate in Australia—that openly discussing a draw-down and a withdrawal and exit strategy is somehow cutting and running or letting down the coalition forces or the mission in Afghanistan—is wrong. I think it is time for us to have an open and sensible debate, not only about military strategy but also about the direction in which we as a country want to take our involvement in Afghanistan, as per other countries who are openly discussing the issue or actively undertaking draw-downs and withdrawals right now. So I certainly stand by those that are on the ground and those families that have suffered over a 10-year period. And I certainly understand why we went there in the first place. However, after a decade, I do think there comes a time where we need to openly reassess and debate, as a parliament, military strategy. I think we need to now think of the economic cost, as well as of the geopolitical and other reasons for being involved. I do, once again, urge the executive to consider beginning a withdrawal earlier than the current date of 2014, in line with what is happening in most other countries engaged in the war in Afghanistan.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The year 2001 saw the World Trade Centre collapse when aircraft crashed into it. Ansett collapsed soon after, and people stopped flying for a time. It was train-wreck television, seeing the World Trade Centre go down; I was glued to the television set for 24 hours. I had gone to bed the night before about three minutes before Sandra Sully broke the news on Channel 10. I woke up in the morning, went out to the front yard and picked up the Townsville Bulletin. On the front of it were pictures of the Twin Towers on fire and I said, 'Oh, what movie is this?' So I went inside and turned the TV on and that was it.

Lavarack Barracks and Garbutt air base went straight into red alert. Their plans for potential impact of terrorist attack were instigated seamlessly. That is what they do; they get on with it. Osama bin Laden claimed credit for the deaths. There was joy in the Middle East. It struck me as very strange and incredibly sad that such a tragedy could achieve such absolute joy in places. It shows just what a cosseted life we lead in Australia, that someone could actually have joy in watching that. I do not blame them for what they did, but I thought the reaction was unbelievable.

It is against this background that our position on Afghanistan must be viewed. There were people in Australia who wanted to, and did, sue Americans for the loss of a loved one in the Twin Towers. Grief is what it is, and actions which may seem excessive to some who are standing at a safe distance seem perfectly reasonable and justifiable to others. We then saw the tragedy that was Bali. We saw London and Madrid. All these link back to Afghanistan. Australia was one of the first countries to act in support of the USA in attacking the Taliban and bin Laden. Over time our role has changed. We are now there in a mentoring capacity. Sadly, this has not made it any safer. So, when people say we should not be there, it must be taken in full view of the knowledge of the 24-hour news cycle, the distance of time and the proximity of tragedy.

I do take the member of Lyne at his word. An exit strategy should be part of any military operation. We do not go into these things aimlessly, and 10 years is an awfully long time to be engaged. But every time we go back to this, we have to go back to why we are there, and Bali was just too close for me. Bali was where Australians went to surf and relax; it was a place for the end of season trips and for cheap holidays. To have seen the victims of that attack on Australia is to forever know that we will never be completely safe until other countries take control of their own lives. Bali was too close.

Australian troops went to the front when they were called, and they did so willingly. Australian troops defended the people of Afghanistan and attacked the killers of people. They did so with determination and discipline. Australian troops are rebuilding the nation. We are assisting with the training of defence and police forces. We are building schools and hospitals. We are building roads. We are doing all this with trust and hope in our hearts and minds.

Australian troops have died. Some have died on the battlefield. Some have been shot in the back inside their own compounds. I never spoke to a good mate of mine when he left my football club for another. Here we have a situation where you are mates with an Afghan. You have gone out of your way to include him. You have gone out of your way to help him. You have shared with him. You have protected him. And he has betrayed you. He has killed you and your mates. That is the greatest betrayal of all.

Australian troops are disciplined. There is no revenge. There is a systematic approach to tending the wounded and securing the perimeter. The killer will be caught and will face justice. That is our way.

We grieve. It is felt in every city and town in Australia when we lose a member of our ADF. But it is felt more in cities such as Townsville where there is not only a large population of serving members but an even larger contingent of ex-service personnel. I attended the funeral of Lance Corporal Gavin last week. His family were there. He has three children, with the youngest girl still in a pram. His middle child, his daughter, twirled in her beautiful dress, and his son, Joshua, looked every inch the man of the house in his shirt and tie. Brigadier Smith, the immediate past brigade commander, spoke. The Prime Minister was represented by the Minister for Defence, and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Shadow Minister for Trade represented the Leader of the Opposition. Lieutenant General David Morrison was there as the Chief of Army. Townsville's mayor, Les Tyrell, was there. We all filed out after the coffin at the end of the service. It was then that they chose to play the wedding song at the exit, so we had this extremely important and sombre procession walking out of the chapel at Lavarack Barracks as Kiss sang, 'I was made for lovin' you, baby.'

We have lost 32 now. I was at the War Memorial last week with my nine-year-old son. Even though he was ready to run, he was respectful, by the very nature of the place, and was quiet all the way around on the tour. There is a place of honour there for our fallen. The current veterans know what it means to them.

We must concern ourselves with the mission at hand. We must concern ourselves with the conditions being faced by the men and women still there. I heard the member for Wentworth speak earlier, and he spoke of this very matter. We here, in this place, cannot know what pressure is. We cannot know what it is like not to be able to relax. We cannot know what it is like to be living with the constant threat of being injured, or worse, by the very people who we are trying to help.

To be killed or injured on the battlefield is one thing—a trained service man or woman can compartmentalise this and rationalise what has happened. What we as a society must acknowledge is that some of the people returning will have problems. That is why we must ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs must remain ever vigilant as to the needs of their clients. Management there must never let the service of our returning and retiring service men and women become merely a job. A counselling service must be held separately from areas where they can be viewed as 'having a problem'.

I know that the DVA in Townsville has some very tough cases in front of them; I know that DVA staff in Townsville are doing the very best that they can. We must ensure that the very people who have always been so strong and proud are welcomed and nurtured in their time of need. They must be told that this need is not a weakness—it is being human. The RSL must ensure that a welcoming hand is extended at every function. They must include. They must ensure that advocacy they provide is professional and respectful at all times. The city of Townsville must rally around our Defence families. We must ensure that we respect the space they require, but we can still be good neighbours and friends without intruding. Our schools where Defence mums or liaison are present must be on their toes and look for signs of families under stress, and offer a cup of coffee or a word of encouragement to all. Legacy will become even more important as we go on in time. To see those three children last week lose their father was hard enough. To be a family a long, long way from home and struggle with school fees and transport is another thing entirely. I know the people at Legacy in Townsville; a better group of people you will never find. But they must also renew. Their role has never been more challenging in a very busy world.

So every time I hear someone tell me we should come home, I think of those people who died in the World Trade Centre and in Bali, London and Madrid. I try not to think about how they would feel if we did pull out and their brother, sister, son, daughter, mother, father or loved one were killed as a direct result of us not completing the job we set out to do. We must respect those who lost their lives and make sure we complete the work. We owe everyone that much. Lest we forget.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will say from the outset that I very much appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship that has characterised our approach to this issue in Afghanistan and the support for our men and women in uniform. The fact that there is that bipartisan support is very important to them. They understand that they have that support, and it makes a difference to them. I know that both members of the coalition and members of the government share the experience of having to attend the funerals of those who have been lost and of meeting their families, so we are not hidden from the experience of the loss. Obviously we both appreciate that loss deeply. We salute, of course, the families who have continued to support the surviving members of units whose members have been lost and who remain committed in large part to this mission. They are an inspiration in that respect.

It is a significant factor that the men and women in uniform, and their families, very much appreciate that progress is being made and would wish this mission to continue to fulfilment. But it is right and appropriate that we have this discussion—that we continue to revisit our deployment and continue to analyse it. Notwithstanding that there is bipartisanship support, we are of course hearing alternative views, such as we have heard from the member for Lyne. And we have the member for Melbourne in the chamber as well. So we are having an open discussion on the continuing involvement in Afghanistan. I think it is worthwhile reminding ourselves why we are there—not just in the sense of what happened on 9/11, as dramatic and horrendous as those events were, but putting it further in context of what was going on in Afghanistan at the time.

The key thing here is that Afghanistan offered an opportunity for al-Qaeda and its like minded organisations and affiliates to have the apparatus—the complete environment of a state—at its disposal. This is an entirely different order of magnitude from al-Qaeda being squeezed to the margins of other states where there may be ungoverned spaces or loose regulations so they can develop cells or operate to a degree. Having the resources of a state at their disposal enabled them to reach much higher planes of assaults on their enemies in the West. We know that in Afghanistan they were so closely tied in in a symbiotic relationship with the Taliban that enabled them to operate a complete conventional formation—the 055 Brigade. Through that brigade they were able to train and organise thousands of terrorists from around the world—process them and then incubate them out into other terrorist organisations within our own region.

This is not a question of operating outside of the scope of our own interests. The central Asian country of Afghanistan was incubating significant terrorist threats throughout our region in relation to Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jemaah Islamiah and many other groups that we know have caused Australian casualties. We know from comments being made at the time in Afghanistan that Australia was well and truly on the target lists of these organisations. Largely that was why targets such as were chosen in Bali were singled out—because of the opportunity to target Australians.

It was not just the regular formation of the 055 Brigade. There was an extensive network of training camps. The apparatus of the state enabled al-Qaeda and like minded organisations to operate at a much higher level in financial terms, using the opportunities that a state gave it to organise financial support. They were also using that opportunity in Afghanistan to run a series of experimentation sites for chemical and biological welfare and weapons of mass destruction, through which they would obviously seek to cause even greater loss of life and destruction than what we were forced to witness in relation to the destruction of the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

That opportunity was there for them, completely unconstrained. There was a whole range of things they were able to do in that ungoverned space of the territory of Afghanistan that was available to them, with the assistance of the Taliban. The Taliban themselves, of course, were one of the most reprehensible and evil regimes the world has ever seen, taking Islamist extremism to an entirely new plane. The cultural warfare they waged on the history and culture of their own country was horrendous. There was not just the destruction of those highly significant Buddhas at Bamiyan, which achieved great notoriety around the world. So many other cultural artefacts were destroyed by that organisation. Those were inanimate objects, but certainly thousands throughout the nation of Afghanistan suffered horrendously. There were organised massacres. There was sexual slavery. There was repression of women to a degree not witnessed even in the most repressive of Islamist extremist societies that existed at the time, and of course many still suffer from loss of rights in some countries of that nature, but certainly they were a horrendous regime and worthy of dispatch for that reason. It was these associated national interest issues that particularly engaged us in the need to deploy our own armed forces in the international effort to neutralise that country as a safe haven.

I heard reference from the member for Lyne and others to us having been engaged in Afghanistan now for 10 years. That is not quite accurate. We obviously had a significant effort in Afghanistan in 2001, but there were a number of years when we only had effectively one officer present in Afghanistan working with the United Nations organisation there. So our commitment has not remained on the scale that it is now through the entire 10-year period. In fact it was not until 2005 that the effort started to ramp up again, and that signals how the international community dropped the ball in Afghanistan strategically. There is no question but that our engagement in Iraq did distract us from the effort in Afghanistan.

If just part of the blood and treasure that was expended in Iraq had been directed to Afghanistan in those early days we would not be having this discussion now—but we are where we are. It was one of the reasons I entered politics, to try and address our strategic approach to dealing with counterinsurgency and stabilisation operations. This is something that had consumed my entire military career and on which I have written a great deal. It informed many views about how this nation should approach this issue, in particular that we needed to do a much better job of forging cohesive, coherent, whole-of-government campaign planning approaches to these environments. A counterinsurgency situation is classically the formula of probably 20 per cent security but 80 per cent social, economic and political. We were not really pursuing a cohesive whole-of-government strategy in Afghanistan in that context, so I was grateful for the opportunity to come on board with the Rudd government and create the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence that we now have based in Queanbeyan, where it can work in conjunction Headquarters JOC; with the AFP's IDG group at Madura; with ACFID, the NGO peak organisation; and with the various agencies of government.

That centre has made a difference to the strategies that we are employed on the ground. I was very fortunate to be with my colleagues the member for Kooyong, the member for Forrest and Senator Kroger at the end of April this year in Afghanistan and spend a week on the ground with our men and women in both Tarin Kowt and Kandahar. It was really heartwarming to see the change in the strategic approach so that the Provincial Reconstruction Team was no longer some neglected bolt-on to the operation but at the centre of the commander's concept of operations. The rest of the military effort was strapped around the Provincial Reconstruction Team to facilitate its work. We have heard talk about exit strategies here, but that exit strategy is in place. It is built on a concept of separating the population from the insurgency, from the insurgents themselves, connecting the population with its government and developing their nation-building capacity, particularly, from the military point of view, building the security sector reform that we need to transition to their responsibility for security affairs. That was achieving great progress when we were there.

Those gains that have been made over the period of the previous 12 months have been consolidated and secured through this so-called fighting season. So we have made very significant progress. The security footprint through the Dhast, through the areas of civilian population in Oruzgan province, have been greatly increased. The security sector responsibility of Afghanis in filling that previous security void has been successful. The 4th Brigade is achieving great strides. There is still much work to do in relation to the Afghan Police Force; there is no question about that. But I visited the police training centre where our AFP are hard at work and they are making progress there. In terms of these other nation-building efforts to create loyalty in the civilian population to its government, we saw great progress there not only in the completion of the boys school at Tarin Kowt but also in the finalisation that was taking place of the girls school at Tarin Kowt, a school that will cater for 750 girls. This is a huge, quantum leap forward in a province that was the most backward of the backward. Literacy rates were incredibly low: we are talking about a 93-odd per cent illiteracy rate in Oruzgan province. So the boost that we are giving to education is the single most important thing. We have heard statistics about Afghanistan in general, but education is going to be the key to the future of that nation. So our efforts there have been tremendous and very rewarding engagements for our troops.

The opening of the Sorkh Morghab mosque is building a relationship between our forces and the community because we have shown our respect for their culture, for which they have shown their gratitude; there is also the muliplier effect that has created in the build-up of communal activities around the mosque. We have also been involved in improving the delivery of health services at the Tarin Kowt hospital. These things are complementary strategies in relation to the broader mission of the security sector peace that we are delivering in Oruzgan province.

Obviously, in the past Australia has been in the situation where we have had responsibility for provinces, and national efforts have let us down. We had that experience in the Phu Toc province in Vietnam. We had it, in my own experience, in the Bay province in Somalia. We went on to Al Muthanna in Iraq, where there was a happier ending, and now here we are in Oruzgan province. It is a legitimate question to ask where the national situation in Afghanistan is going from the point of view of the rule of law and good governance, and there is much more effort that has to be put into that. Ultimately, this will be something for the Afghans themselves to deliver, but we must remain engaged—and that will be decades of engagement—to facilitate, mentor, improve and build that capacity. However, from the point of view of our military involvement, there is an exit strategy that will be delivered within a time line we have set.

But we should make it clear that we are not focused on an end date; we are focused on an end state. If we achieve that end state, that is when we will transition our security posture there. If it is sooner, then that is well and good, and the Prime Minister has flagged that. Certainly, we send a very clear message to Islamist extremists that it will not be the end of our involvement. There will be support for an Afghan government that continues to pursue, and deny a safe haven to, these extremists. It is a very complex picture there. Reconciliation is part of the process, and that is being pursued. There are diverse elements that are associated with this, and we have heard talk about the Pakistan element here, which is a very serious concern. I understand the historical basis of their support for Taliban elements, but they need to understand that that nearly brought their own nation down in 2009, when the Taliban were only 100 kilometres from Islamabad. For example, what was the first thing they did when they achieved control of the Swat valley? It was to blow up 100 schools, because these Islamist extremists see education as their enemy. They replaced the schools with radical madrasahs. This is our battle: to defeat Islamist extremism and promote the voices of moderate Islam in this world and in our own country. We are fully engaged in that and determined to see that mission through.

I know there is concern about these rogue soldier incidents that have occurred. We do not fully understand exactly what has happened there, but these incidents have not been unknown in previous conflicts. In fact, in Vietnam we suffered some Australian-on-Australian incidents, known as fragging. These are things that can happen when people are suffering severe mental breakdown or stress—or, in a situation like Afghanistan, where it might be family or tribal retribution, or indeed associated with the Taliban insurgents.

But this is not deflecting us from our mission. Our troops remain committed to it. When I was there, I pulled aside some who were close friends of mine and said, 'Give me the no-BS answer here: is this working? Should we stay?' They all gave me the same answer: 'Yes, we believe we will achieve success. We are making progress. Please stick with us. We will achieve this mission.' Thank you.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and, subsequently, coalition troops fighting in Afghanistan. On this occasion it is important for us to take hold and remember why we first went into Afghanistan, to remember what we have fought to achieve and just how far we have come. At this time we must not lose our courage, our resolve and our commitment to the ideals which our service men and women have sacrificed and fought for.

Earlier this year I visited Afghanistan and was witness to the many significant gains we are making—greater gains than ever before and gains at a greater rate than ever before. Australia is making a difference and there are tangible results to be seen. There have been significant improvements in security, and the ability of the Taliban to engage in armed conflict and recruit supporters has been severely impeded.

Australians are taking an active role in preparing Afghanistan to secure its future. Troops such as those I spent significant time with in Mentoring Task Force 3 are having a genuinely positive impact by skilling the Afghan National Army to take the lead on security. Australian troops are providing the essential element of any civilised society—that is, security. An enduring sense of security will be a strong incentive to the Afghan people not to pick up a weapon, to do things differently to how they have been done before, to voice concerns peacefully and to live without the violence that has defined the Afghan nation for so long.

This progress is positive in more than one way. We are seeing communities develop from often the simplest of tasks. Successes in what we might see as the most simple of tasks, such as building a road or a school or a market, are creating power, prestige and legitimacy for the elected government, resulting in greater trust and better communities.

These are positive impacts that will outlast our presence in Afghanistan. This represents tangible and real progression towards a more free and secure Afghanistan. These gains repudiate the often misguided public perception that what we are doing in Afghanistan is like putting our hand in a bucket of water only to pull it out and see the progress washed away. This progress is being made in such a way that the Afghan people will be able to continue to sustain and develop its governing capacity after the coalition forces withdraw. Dedicating the time and resources required to reach a point where the country is self-sustainable is of critical importance. The timing of our withdrawal must be determined by the realities on the ground. To withdraw too soon would undermine the achievements of our troops thus far, negating the many positive advances we have seen in Afghanistan.

As politicians it is in part our responsibility to communicate the positive gains we have made in Afghanistan. The greatest frustration I found from our service men and women on the ground was how the war is reported back home, particularly the failure to report the positive achievements our troops are making. As the Prime Minister said in this place, the ramp ceremonies and funerals that Australians see on TV are part of the story, undeniably an important part of the story, but they are not the whole story.

The Afghanistan that we are working towards, that our highly professional and committed soldiers are fighting for, is an Afghanistan where its people are free to choose their own way of life and determine their own future, one which is governed by an elected government that has the legitimacy and security it requires for effective governance.

With this in mind, it is imperative that as politicians we begin to turn our attention to our future strategic partnership with Afghanistan, a partnership beyond military ties and which will add value to both our nations. We are well within reach of the goal of the ANA taking the lead on security by 2014, as the Prime Minister has already stated in this place.

I had the privilege of meeting with many DFAT and AusAID officials who are undertaking the all-too-often undervalued work of engagement and assistance to the Afghan and provincial government. They are supporting the democratic process and institutions that encourage economic growth and a prosperous civil society. It is the vital work that these departments and agencies do now that will help determine the enduring success of our mission in Afghanistan long after we leave. It is their work that will help the Afghan and provincial governments ensure greater effectiveness and self-sufficiency of their governance. It is in this light that it is evident that the success in Afghanistan will be a process as much as an outcome. We also need to be engaging with nations across the region such as Pakistan to ensure that they are not granting sanctuary to terrorism, as was underlined this year by the successful mission by the United States against the head of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, in Pakistan. Finally, we need to continue to support the good work that our troops are doing. Our men and women serving in Afghanistan need to be assured that they have our support and that we are proud of the work they are doing to ensure a safer Afghanistan, a nation that will never again harbour terrorism or extremism.

Speaking with our troops in Afghanistan, I was immensely proud and encouraged to see that among our troops morale is high. They believe in what they are doing and bring a sense of purpose to their duties. They believe in what they are achieving and are optimistic about their    progress. Too many of our finest Australians have paid the ultimate price to ensure that a stable Afghanistan is a better place for the Afghans and less conducive for those who promote terror and violence. The perception of our troops is that there is little justice given to the gains being made and little support for their hard work on the ground.

We have an opportunity to get this right and to stop Afghanistan continuing to harbour those who would threaten our way of life. We have an opportunity to cement the gains we are making. But, in order to do so, in order to protect our way of life, we need to stay the distance to see our mission through. The cost of prematurely withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan is too great. The stability of Afghanistan and the region rests in an exit strategy that is founded on the progress and realities on the ground. The best way for us to honour the sacrifices of our servicemen and servicewomen, to honour those lives lost in this battle, is to see it through to the end.

Let me conclude by saying that I was deeply humbled and awed by the professionalism, dedication and commitment I witnessed in our servicemen and servicewomen on the ground. Regardless of our individuals views on Afghanistan, all Australians should be immensely proud of those in uniform, those who every day embody the ANZAC spirit.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Afghanistan, we are confronted with a desperate struggle for the future not just of a country but potentially of an entire region. Of course this is not the first time that Afghanistan has been the site of an apparently insurmountable conflict. Not for nothing is it known as the graveyard of empires. For some, this recollection of failures past is reason enough to dismiss our current mission in Afghanistan as an exercise in futility, but the parliament of Australia unreservedly supports military intervention in Afghanistan till the job is done.

To some extent this is understandable. Afghanistan has always posed challenges for those intrepid enough—some would say foolhardy enough—to involve themselves in its affairs. Many years ago our former colleague Senator Russell Trood, senator for Queensland, published a book entitled The Indian Ocean: Perspectives on a Strategic Arena. In it, he quoted the future US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Dr Zalmay Khalilzad:

Several factors will play critical roles in determining whether the Soviet Union succeeds in … neutralising the Afghans. These include the policies adopted by Pakistan towards the insurgents, the extent of external support … ability to establish a government in Kabul that commands a large armed force and has a wide base of support …

Substitute 'International Security Assistance Force' for 'Soviet Union' and you have a reasonable description of the state of play in Afghanistan today. Dr Khalilzad's comments serve as a salient reminder that, although the participants may change, the rules of the game in Afghanistan remain largely unchanged. Another recurring truth about Afghanistan is that the struggles it has hosted have never been solely about Afghanistan. Rather, they have always been part of a broader geopolitical conflict. That is why it is folly for us to assume that the challenges we face in Afghanistan can exist in isolation from the affairs of its often volatile neighbours.

No part of that neighbourhood is more interconnected with Afghanistan than its eastern neighbour, Pakistan. Democratic institutions in Pakistan are already at risk from a violent internal insurgency which includes al-Qaeda backed extremists. To that toxic brew, we can add the destabilising influence of Pakistan's rogue Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, who, if not openly in cahoots with the Afghani Taliban, are at the very least proving to be extremely adept at turning a blind eye to their activities.

The mutually parasitic relationship between the ISI, the Taliban and al-Qaeda was most brutally revealed earlier this year when it was discovered that the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, was being harboured in a Pakistani garrison town, just a stone's throw from a military training facility. This towering betrayal strikes a particularly resonant chord with me, because within my electorate of Wright is our own military training facility in the town of Canungra. I know full well just how abhorrent the members of our own defence community would find the concept of an ally harbouring one of our greatest enemies. Of course the West is assisting Pakistan to confront the severe challenges it faces; however, Pakistan is a sovereign nation and is deeply suspicious, if not openly resentful, of outsiders' offers of assistance. In Afghanistan, we have much greater scope and much greater opportunities to bring a semblance of peace and stability to a broken and divided country.

Last week, we had President Obama in the House, reaffirming his nation's commitment to the ANZUS alliance. It therefore seems an opportune moment to reflect upon the role that the alliance plays in our continued commitment in Afghanistan. This reflection is all the more appropriate because a great many critics of the war in Afghanistan seem to have forgotten the circumstances in which the conflict began. The events of 2001 were not an example of American unilateralism. On the contrary, the engagement in Afghanistan was a case of Washington acting in consort with the international community. The mission was undertaken with a mandate from the United Nations—a mandate that has been renewed year after year.

It is also worth remembering who it is we are fighting in Afghanistan. The Taliban has never been a movement with widespread legitimacy. Now more than ever it is a highly factionalised entity, supported in some parts of the country, begrudgingly tolerated in others and openly despised elsewhere. During the years it wielded power, the Taliban succeeded in reducing the entire country to one big concentration camp, enslaving the female population and embarking on an ambitious campaign to exterminate the Hazara minority. Let us not forget that, during this time, the Taliban also played host to the world's pre-eminent terrorist organisation as it plotted the mass murder of thousands of civilians on September 11, or that for the past decade it has been fighting an undeclared war against an international force that is upholding a United Nations mandate. These are not freedom fighters. As a matter of fact, the last thing in the world they want is 'freedom'. They want the complete opposite, and they are ruthless in their determination to get it.

In these circumstances it is to be expected that the fight in Afghanistan will continue to be a tough one. Increasing casualties amongst ISAF troops, more violence against civilians, not to mention the recent betrayal of Australian soldiers by members of the Afghan National Army they are there to support, are all logical explanations for some degree of pessimism. However, there are also reasons to look forward with some confidence. There have been encouraging signs of progress in things like school attendance, as well as the construction of transport, health and telecommunications infrastructure. What is more, economic dependence on poppy cultivation as a source of income is declining. Either way, the reality is that we do not need a perfect Afghanistan to secure our strategic objectives.

Our aim need not be for anything other than a country which is stable, which affords its citizens sufficient freedom to decide their own political, economic and social future, without fear of recrimination from the Taliban, and which has the institutions in place to ensure Islamic extremism does not regain a foothold. The challenge for coalition forces is to create the conditions for these objectives to be achieved.

Australian forces continue to play a vital role. Our contingent may not be the largest in the ISAF stable but, being based largely in the southern province of Oruzgan, our people are in one of the most violent and unstable parts of the country. Our soldiers have paid a high price in Oruzgan, with 32 killed and 214 wounded. However progress is being made and will continue to be made. On that point I wish to express both my gratitude and my enormous respect for the professionalism and dedication of the men and women not just of the ADF but also of the AFP, AusAID and DFAT—all of whom risk so much in the service of our nation. My heart goes out to the families who grieve for their lost ones and loved ones—those mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends of family members who carried personal burdens of their loved ones, who paid the greatest sacrifice to our nation.

Following through our commitment to Afghanistan is an immensely important enterprise. With public support for the war declining, I believe it is incumbent on us in this place to redouble our efforts to urge the case, to go beyond the platitudes and the motherhood statements and to clearly spell out the strategic rationale for staying the course. Our brave men and women in the field deserve no less. Lest we forget.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week I represented the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition at the funeral at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville of Lance Corporal Luke Gavin of the 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. Lance Corporal Gavin, together with Captain Bryce Duffy and Corporal Ashley Birt, was killed in recent weeks in Afghanistan, in devastating circumstances. It was a moving service, with tributes from friends and colleagues. The presence of his young wife and his three beautiful young children reminded us all of the huge loss they will bear. It was enough to break your heart.

This is the human cost of the war in Afghanistan. It is appropriate that we in this parliament reflect on our role, for this year is the 10th anniversary of Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict. We must never forget that our involvement in this conflict began in response to the terrorist attack on New York and on Washington on September 11, 2001. Eleven Australians were among the thousands who were killed on that fateful day. They were innocent victims in the atrocities caused by al-Qaeda, and this was the origin of our commitment to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for international terrorism. The country has come a long way since 2001. After years of combat, our main mission now is to train the soldiers of the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade.

We in the coalition believe that this continues to be a worthwhile task, as it gives the hope that there can be a long-term, sustainable future that involves a better life for the people of Afghanistan. We particularly hope that it will help secure a better life for Afghan women, who were innocent victims of the unbridled chauvinism of the former Taliban regime. In our recent private meeting with President Obama here in Canberra, the Leader of the Opposition and I were able to reassure the President of our ongoing support for the mission in Afghanistan and our support for the government's commitment, as well as the importance to both countries and to other countries involved of seeing a sensible withdrawal, at the appropriate time, from Afghanistan.

In recent times we have seen the dramatic strike by the United States forces at al-Qaeda, with the death of Osama bin Laden, which represents a huge blow to the operational effectiveness of that terrorist network. We commend the United States administration for the daring and resourcefulness of this successful mission. As the Leader of the Opposition noted in his contribution to this debate, there are United States reports that half of the key leadership of this criminal enterprise has now been killed or captured. In that sense we are making progress. It is hard won.

President Obama announced recently that some 33,000 United States troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan over the course of 2012. Great Britain has recently withdrawn 500 troops. In keeping with Afghan President Karzai's statement that the Afghan military should assume full responsibility for security by the end of 2014, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries have agreed to this timetable. Australia also agrees. We must respect the desire of the Afghan government to assume responsibility for the security of the country and to determine its own future. However, that does not mean that Australia or other countries will simply abandon Afghanistan. In her statement on this motion the Prime Minister committed to maintaining a presence in Afghanistan past 2014. She also made it clear that this could even involved the stationing of combat troops, like the SAS. We must secure the gains that have been made.

Australia will also have a major foreign aid role to help the Afghan people. Afghanistan is currently the recipient of significant amounts of aid from this country. In the current financial year, 2011-12, the budget estimates state that just over $165 million will be spent. Of this sum the bulk of the money, just over $124 million, will go in direct country-to-country assistance via AusAID. The remainder will be distributed through international aid agencies and through other Commonwealth departments, like the Department of Defence.

Afghanistan is a country that certainly needs assistance. The Human Development Index of the United Nations gives an idea of the relative disadvantage of Afghanistan. In the latest index, released only two weeks ago, Australia came in second, to Norway, out of 187 countries. In contrast Afghanistan came 172nd. Although not the worst, it rated lower than countries like Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Sudan.

Gross national income per capita in Afghanistan is only $457. According to AusAID average life expectancy is 44 years and the infant death rate is exceptionally high, with 20 per cent dying in the first five years. Appallingly, in Oruzgan province, where Australia's efforts are based, the infant toll is 37 per cent.

Australia's aid effort is focussed on a number of areas. In the area of education and health Australia is helping to train teachers and medical staff. With respect to teachers there is a focus on training female teachers. It is hoped that this will lead to a domino effect in broadening the education of women throughout the country.

In cooperation with Malaysia and Afghanistan Australia is also running a course for master teacher trainers. This has resulted in 60 graduates since 2009. The target is to train an additional 120 by mid next year. This is crucial in a country where the literacy rate is, according to AusAID, a very low 28 per cent, and only 12.6 per cent for women.

In relation to economic growth Australia is providing rural infrastructure assistance and farmer training. In terms of governance Australia has contributed to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which funds public service reform. There is also a focus on training interns for the Oruzgan provincial government. In terms of humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid Australia is focussed on a $20 million landmine clearing program. These aid programs have made a material difference to Afghans. Together with our coalition partners we have overseen school enrolments increase from one million to six million in the last 10 years, of which two million are girls.

When the coalition troops are pulled out of Afghanistan, whatever that date may be, the overseas development aid effort must continue. What I have just detailed of our aid effort will need to remain. We cannot make the mistake of the Soviets when they left Afghanistan in the 1980s and completely abandoned the country. Australia will have a significant role—a moral obligation, no less—to assist where we can to help the Afghan people for decades yet. We support the need to keep training the Afghan troops in the hope that as soon as possible the job will be done and our brave soldiers may return to the arms of their families. When that time comes we hope that we leave behind a more secure and safe Afghanistan. But not completely secure and safe. There will still be violence and poverty. To solve those problems will take generations, but the Afghan state will be stronger—not fully developed but stronger and more resilient. And it will certainly be more secure and safe than was the case under the brutal Taliban. The ultimate prize will be the chance for young boys and more particularly, young girls, to have a genuine opportunity to live full lives, free of totalitarian ideology.

In the latest update on Australia's involvement in Afghanistan the Prime Minister set out the conditions upon which our country is engaged in that country and the timetable for the drawdown of Australian troops. On this conflict there is essentially a bipartisan policy between the two major parties. However the government's position is compromised by the position of its formal alliance partner, the Greens. The Greens oppose Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, speaks from ignorance on the subject, never having taken up the opportunity of visiting the country. Members of the government, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I have visited Afghanistan, and many others have had an opportunity to speak to the troops on the ground. In fact, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were there only recently and were able to report on their trips to this House when they spoke on the motion. In contrast, the Greens, who oppose our alliance with the United States, the ANZUS alliance, would rather we cut and run from Afghanistan and risk further tragic deaths of innocent civilians if the transition to Afghan security is not done in a measured and sensible way.

Finally, I pay tribute to the brave Australian soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in Afghanistan. We have to face the fact that our troops face formidable challenges every single day they are in Afghanistan. We pay tribute to those 32 who have been killed. We will never forget them. We must never neglect the 231 soldiers wounded in the line of duty. They carry the physical and emotional scars. We salute them. We thank them.

In closing, I note again the bipartisan commitment to this cause. We will help Afghanistan on its road to governing and securing the country and its borders—what the Afghan defence minister has called its 'journey of self-reliance'. We must make sure that Afghanistan is resilient enough to protect its own national security and, through that process, our own.

Debate adjourned.