Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including to the parliament. I last reported to the parliament on 24 November 2011, with a particular emphasis on detainee management. Prior to this, I had updated parliament on Afghanistan on four other occasions during 2011. This is my first report to parliament for 2012.

International commitment, transition and post-transition

I attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels on 4 February. Defence ministers met at a critical time for the international community’s commitment in Afghanistan ahead of the NATO/ISAF Leaders Summit in Chicago in May. Defence ministers continued their consideration of the international community’s post-2014 commitment to Afghanistan.

The international community has reached the point where key decisions now need to be made about the post-2014 international commitment in Afghanistan. A clear, consistent message about the future from NATO and ISAF is essential for Afghanistan, its neighbours—especially Pakistan—and also to send a clear message to the Taliban and insurgent groups.

Australia believes that there are three key decisions to be agreed at the Chicago leaders summit:

Firstly, to reaffirm—as defence ministers did in Brussels—the commitments on security transition the international community made in Lisbon, namely to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility across the country by 2014. Important progress has been made with the implementation of the first two tranches of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security. When these two tranches of districts have transitioned, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will provide lead security for up to 50 per cent of the Afghan population.

As United States Secretary of Defense Panetta has recently noted, when the final tranche of districts and provinces commences transition to Afghan-led security in mid-2013, the international community and Afghanistan will have achieved a key Lisbon milestone. As both Secretary Panetta and NATO/ISAF defence ministers said in Brussels, ISAF forces will of course still need to be in support and prepared to undertake combat operations in support of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) until the end of transition in 2014.

Secondly, at Chicago the international community and Afghanistan will need to determine and agree the size and shape of the ANSF that is sufficient to ensure and sustain security for Afghanistan in the longer term beyond 2014. Having determined this in consultation with the Afghan government, the cost of sustaining the ANSF needs to be agreed as well as a fair burden-sharing arrangement for consideration by the broader international community.

Thirdly, the international community must make an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. The NATO-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership and comparable bilateral national agreements—including with Australia—are an important start. Last month, President Karzai signed frameworks for cooperation between Afghanistan and the United Kingdom and other European partners, including France and Italy. Afghanistan and the United States are continuing to work towards their future strategic partnership framework. These partnership agreements represent an important evolution in the relationship between the government of Afghanistan and its international partners and reflect the international community’s long-term enduring commitment to Afghanistan.

As the Prime Minister said in her statement to parliament on 21 November last year, Australia also seeks an enduring relationship with Afghanistan beyond 2014. After 2014, Australia will maintain links with Oruzgan Province, but our role will necessarily have a more national focus. As well, the international community must, in the context of the Chicago summit, agree a basic mission profile of NATO-led, post-2014, post-ISAF engagement to support, assist and advise the ANSF to ensure stability is sustained beyond 2014 and to achieve our objective of never again allowing Afghanistan to be a training ground for international terrorism.

The mission profile necessary to achieve this could include but not necessarily be limited to:

In Brussels, I met senior NATO/ISAF Commanders and my Defence ministerial colleagues from Afghanistan and a number of NATO/ISAF contributing countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. The resounding view is that good security progress continues to be made on the ground in Afghanistan. We agreed that there has been positive momentum in the mission and that we must continue to consolidate security gains in 2012.

Although the circumstances continue to be difficult and dangerous, we are on track to transition to Afghan-led responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by 2014. Combined Afghan National Security Forces and International Security Assistance Force operations continue to maintain gains over the insurgency, despite the high-profile attacks that ISAF has experienced during the past six months. These high-profile attacks have been used by the insurgency as propaganda to undermine the progress made and the confidence in the Afghan government and the International Security Assistance Force.

Combined Team Oruzgan: Progress in O ruzgan

Australia is committed to training and mentoring the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in Oruzgan Province to enable them to take on responsibility for security in Oruzgan by 2014. Australian forces continue to make steady progress in training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army. The 4th Brigade is increasingly assuming the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations, allowing Australian forces to concentrate on mentoring and advising Afghan command and combat support functions.

The 4th Brigade is also demonstrating progress towards operating independently, with a number of infantry Kandaks (battalions) now expected to be capable of conducting independent operations during 2012. On current advice, the 4th Brigade as a whole is expected to be operationally viable and ready to take the lead for security by 2014, and possibly earlier. On that trajectory, there is an expectation that Oruzgan will be included in the third tranche of districts and provinces to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility. There is an expectation that the decision on the third tranche of transition will be made in the course of the first half of this year and that transition to Afghan-led security will then take place over the following 12 to 18 months.

Australian troops continue to work with our ISAF colleagues from the United States, Singapore and Slovakia in Combined Team Uruzgan. Australia’s mission to train the ANA 4th Brigade is progressing well, with an expanded Afghan influence throughout the province. Australian Mentoring Task Force-Three (MTF-3) handed over to Mentoring Task Force-Four (MTF-4) on 24 January. Over the eight months that MTF-3 conducted operations in Oruzgan, the level of Afghan National Security Forces competence grew, with the local forces becoming more and more independent in planning security operations.

The 4th Brigade is now leading operations with the MTF in tactical support and the majority of ANA patrols are now conducted independently. The 4th Brigade Headquarters and the 2nd Kandak are now assessed as being effective with advisor support. The Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are more frequently conducting combined security operations, and are increasingly doing so without requests for direct International Security Assistance Force support. This has reduced the freedom of movement and activity of insurgents in Oruzgan.

Detainee Management update

Australia takes the issue of detainee management very seriously and has a robust framework for detainee management in Afghanistan. In developing our detainee management framework, Australia has had two priorities in mind. First, the critical need to remove insurgents from the battlefield, where they endanger Australian, ISAF and Afghan lives. Second, the need to ensure humane treatment of detainees, consistent with Australian values and our domestic and international legal obligations.

Australia’s detainee framework draws on applicable international standards and advice from international humanitarian organisations. Under the framework, detainees apprehended by the Australian Defence Force are either transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the Detention Facility in Parwan or released if there is insufficient evidence to seek prosecution through the Afghan judicial system. Arrangements are in place with both the Afghan and US governments that include assurances on the humane treatment of detainees and access to those detainees by Australian officials and humanitarian organisations to monitor their continuing welfare.

Update on detainee allegations

Australia continues to make clear its commitment to open and transparent detainee arrangements in support of ADF operations in Afghanistan. Between 1 August 2010, when detainee management responsibility shifted to Australia from the Dutch, to 3 February 2012, Australian forces apprehended 1,200 detainees. Of these, 159 were transferred to Afghan custody at the National Directorate of Security (NDS) in Tarin Kowt or United States custody at the detention facility in Parwan. The remaining detainees were released following initial screening.

In the same period, the ADF captured 11 people who were subsequently released, then recaptured. Six of the individuals in question were released as there was insufficient evidence to warrant their continued detention. Of the remaining five detainees, there was sufficient evidence to warrant their transfer and prosecution. Two were subsequently transferred to US custody in Parwan, and three were transferred to Afghan custody in Tarin Kowt.

In the same period 71 allegations of detainee mistreatment have been made against the ADF. To date, 57 of these allegations have been fully investigated and found to have no substance. The remaining 14 allegations remain under review. These allegations and the outcomes of the investigations are reported to ISAF and relevant humanitarian organisations.

Deployment of an interrogation capability

In my November 2011 statement to parliament, I announced that the Australian government had approved the deployment of a team of nine, including six trained interrogators to Afghanistan, to question detainees apprehended by the ADF. On 1 February I announced this capability had deployed to Afghanistan and is now operational.

The deployment of this capability enables the ADF to play a greater role in the collection of vital information on the insurgency, and supports the protection of Australian and ISAF personnel as well as the local population.

Inquiry Officer Reports

When an Australian soldier is killed in combat an Inquiry Officer Report is prepared in order to determine the circumstances surrounding the death and any lessons learnt. A number of factors led to a delay in releasing Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in 2010. An inquiry into a fatality requires careful consideration, however, it is clear that insufficient resources and priority were afforded to processing inquiry reports from 2010. There have regrettably been delays in the Inquiry Officer process in respect of a number of our fallen, most recently with the deaths of Privates Chuck, Aplin and Palmer.

The Chief of the Defence Force has apologised for this as have I. I do so again.

The CDF has put in place a number of measures to address the deficiencies identified in the lack of resources and priority attached to processing Inquiry Officer Reports within Defence. In addition to giving priority to closer oversight of the progress of reports, the steps underway to remediate the issues within the Commission of Inquiry Directorate are:

A regular Inquiry Watch Group has been established under a One Star Officer to coordinate efforts across Defence to progress combat inquiries and reduce delays. Defence is also reviewing procedural constraints to see if we can release information faster to the families of the fallen.

I have also reinforced with the Chief of the Defence Force and Vice Chief of the Defence Force that Defence and Army have to pay particular care to ensuring that families understand the processes involved, including the detailed processes involved prior to the report being presented to the minister for approval for release.

The past focus of the Inquiry Officer process has been on the public release of the Inquiry Officer Reports and reports have been released as a matter of course. In my view the focus now needs to be on the timely provision of the report to the family of the deceased. As such, I have asked Defence and Army to ascertain the wishes of the family with respect to the public release of the report.

As well, any decision to publicly release an Inquiry Officer Report rightly comes after weighing the wishes of the family members about publication and the public interest in the release of the report wider than family members and affected persons to the general public. Most recently, for example, there was a clear public interest in the public release on 2 February this year of the Inquiry Officer Report into the death of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney during the Battle of Derapet on 24 August 2010.

There have been 32 combat fatalities in Afghanistan. Regrettably, Inquiry Officer Reports are outstanding for 15 fatalities dating back to 2010. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to six fatalities are currently under consideration with the families of the deceased. Inquiry Officer Reports relating to a further nine fatalities are in the process of preparation for presentation to families by Defence.

Once the Inquiry Officer Reports have been considered by the families, the reports will then be presented to the Minister for Defence for approval for release. I regard the wishes of the family so far as public release is concerned as a relevant material factor to consider in publication of the report beyond the family itself and others directly affected.

The changes Defence has made to the Inquiry Officer process will contribute to finalising a number of the Inquiry Officer Reports into combat deaths in the coming weeks and months.

I thank the House and I table a paper in conjunction with my ministerial statement.

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 16 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robert speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 16 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the Minister for Defence's sixth update to the House. He made it very clear in March 2011 that he would seek to make timely, relevant responses on combat operations in Afghanistan. He made five of those ministerial statements in 2011, to his credit, and he continues to keep his word in keeping the parliament and, indeed, the nation up to date with the prosecution of those operations.

I note, Minister, that after the last time we spoke the Speaker's position changed with then Speaker Jenkins seeking to play a more fulsome role in the House. It is nice to see that the Speaker did not change when you spoke this time.

The coalition is very pleased to respond to the Minister for Defence on Afghanistan, this being our first time in 2012. As the minister rightly knows, the coalition offers wide, deep and lasting bipartisan support for the prosecution of combat operations and wider operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East area of operations. This bipartisan support is not conditional, except on the national interest. It is given freely based on mutual respect and trust. We acknowledge though, and we have stated conditionally and completely, that it is not a blank cheque for the government. We do expect to be kept updated, both publicly to the House and privately through the conventions of the minister-shadow minister relationship. I acknowledge the minister does both of those well. The coalition will be looking to return to Afghanistan this year as part of our annual due diligence as an opposition and I know the minister will offer every assistance in this task.

It is a critical year for combat operations, as the minister has well highlighted. As we look towards a metric-based commanders' judgment-led withdrawal by 2014, crucial decisions will need to be made and we will be looking for very strong leadership from the minister during the year, especially as the May NATO ISAF leaders summit in Chicago draws near.

I note the minister has outlined three key decisions he is looking for at the May summit: the reaffirmation of the Lisbon security transition commitments, namely the transition to Afghan-led security by 2014; secondly, to agree the size and the shape of the Afghan National Security Force required to maintain that security; and, of course, the broad enduring commitment from the international community to Afghanistan post transition. Consequently, it will be incumbent upon the minister, post the May meeting, to update the House on some areas of national interest that connect to and form a wider part of those three key commitments. I note also that in 2013 the nation will be having an election, so this anticipated, well-heralded and crucial transition will be undertaken at quite a challenging time in our national history. It is incumbent upon both sides of parliament to ensure that the highest priority is accorded to the transition arrangements, and the coalition pledges that it will ensure that every assistance will be given during that time.

From the perspective of the national interest, key things we will be looking for include actual metric based rules for Australia's withdrawal of the bulk of its combat force. What do those rules look like? What do the conditions look like? What are the key areas of the commander's judgment required to be? We note from previous discussions with the minister that, of the 30-odd forward-operating and patrol bases, fewer than 10 are now manned by Australians—the majority are now permanently manned by the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, with Australians using mobile mentoring patrols extensively. Thus our transition is already occurring across Oruzgan.

We are keen to understand the likely force disposition which will remain in theatre post 2014 and the anticipated roles for those forces. Note that the coalition will continue to provide bipartisan support for a force retention post 2014, including for reconstruction, training, force protection and overwatch—including an offensive Special Operations Task Group, or SOTG, presence. I note the minister is continuing to look at areas such as training at the artillery school, which Australian gunners continue to run. We think that is a fine initiative and we also agree with the minister about joining with Her Majesty's military from Great Britain in looking to assist with the military academy in Afghanistan.

We are keen to understand the likely aid and related provincial reconstruction task activities and the quantum involved. We are keen to understand the nature of any proposed bilateral agreement between Australian and Afghanistan, as intimated by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2011, and the extent to which Australian assistance will be committed post 2014. The coalition believes strongly that the Al Minhad Air Base in Dubai should be retained and that every effort should be made to work with the government of the United Arab Emirates to achieve that. Clearly the stability of governments at provincial and national levels, including the challenges and opportunities that presents, is also of some interest. We believe there is considerable opportunity for our parliament to assist nations of the world, including Afghanistan, in setting up their parliaments, especially in the areas of processes, procedures, governance arrangements and the like. We are keen to understand Australia's preparedness to commit forces to restore stability in Afghanistan post 2014 if required and what such a commitment would look like.

I note the minister's confidence that it can be expected that Oruzgan province will transition to Afghan led security force control in the third tranche—expected, give or take, in mid 2013. I praise the minister's confidence and I note it is built on the blood, sweat and tears of our faithful Australian military, which has risen to every task the government of the day has set. In saying so, I thank the fine men and women of MTF 3, based around the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, and I wish the lads and lasses of the 9th Battalion, the bulk of MTF 4, the best as they continue in the fine tradition.

The coalition is under no illusion concerning the tough road to transition. Four of our fine men and women were killed in action and 10 wounded in action from green on blue attacks alone in 2011. Other nations suffered the same types of tragedies. It will be a difficult time; there is no question about it. I note from the minister's update that 1,200 suspects were detained between August 2010 and early February this year, with 159 transferred to either Afghan or US custody and 11 detainees released and recaptured. I also note that there were 71 allegations of detainee mismanagement but that none have been found to have substance. The bottom line is that our enemy is trying to exploit what they see as our weaknesses: our humanity, our rules of engagement and our belief in the rule of law—things that we as a parliament see as great national strengths. I note that we are above our enemy, with our greater moral set and our stronger values. We will continue to investigate allegations where they are raised. But our enemies should know that raising an allegation is not an easy path to achieving release from custody and a return to trying to assist the Taliban in their fight against Australian forces and the wider ISAF. We will continue to investigate allegations but we will not let them be a crutch to our enemy as they are seeking to make them.

Minister, I am pleased that, after I have continually asked you for 12 months, you have finally dispatched an interrogation capability—18 months after the military put up a cabinet submission. I note you have deployed nine people, including six interrogators. If my maths serves me right, with 1,200 detainees over, let us call it, 20 months, that is about 60 detainees a month—on average two per day. As a former trained interrogator, I know that interrogations might take four or five days. If there are only six interrogators—let us put them on a 12-hour shift—that is only three interrogators available at any one time. With two detainees coming in every day on average and with an interrogation taking four or five days, you might have three interrogators working across 10 detainees. I think our interrogators might be stretched. Minister, there may be room for adding a few more interrogators into the order of battle. I note the increase in initial screening from 96 hours to three days plus another three days if deemed necessary to complete the investigation. That is in line with our ISAF partners and the coalition supports it completely.

Minister, I note from your update on inquiry reports that we are still waiting for 15 reports—that is out of the 32 soldiers killed in action. I note the measures you have outlined to ensure that is being addressed—a senior Army lawyer to head up the commission of inquiry plus an admin chief of staff. The coalition agrees that not all reports should be publicly released, but we do demand that the families are provided with them expeditiously and that their views are considered in terms of wider release. We also hope that a clear chain of command is established to ensure that the families who are waiting for these 15 reports, some from 2010, are kept fully informed about any delays and what the military is doing to overcome them.

Minister, there is an issue of taxation which needs to be addressed. The international campaign allowance was legislated in 2001 by the previous government to remunerate defence members for warlike service. It is designed to compensate members for the environmental and dreadful factors of combat operations in specific international campaigns such as Slipper—as in Operation Slipper, Mr Speaker. The international campaign allowance is zoned according to three locations in the Middle East—Afghanistan; Iraq, which has subsequently ceased; and the wider maritime environment. The practice provides tax exemption to ADF members on warlike service. It has been around for 60-odd years, including Korea and Malaya, and is well understood and well supported.

Under section 23AD of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ADF members serving on warlike operations are exempt from tax on salaries and allowances they earn. For soldiers who are wounded in action, the tax exemption extends to periods of hospitalisation regardless of hospital location or duration. The challenge is that if a soldier is hospitalised but, for reasons of mental health or great concern for family, seeks to leave hospital but go back every single day to receive the care that they would otherwise have received, they are then penalised by virtue of the tax act. It has nothing to do with the minister or indeed elements of Defence; it occurs under the tax act because they have chosen for their own mental health or their own family care to leave hospital, even though they should have remained hospitalised. It is the coalition's contention that something needs to change to allow circumstances where the minister can approve the continuation of tax exempt status to allowances in such circumstances so that soldiers are not penalised if they should be in hospital but decide to go home and then travel back and forth.

Likewise, members who undertake escort duties for wounded soldiers or soldiers killed in action do so as a primary role and they are aware before they deploy that when an escort leaves an area of operations they are no longer providing warlike service and therefore they do not receive the tax exemption, even though they are ordered to leave the combat operation to escort home a wounded soldier or indeed a mate who has been killed in action. I note that on returning a range of allowances are paid such as travelling allowance, which is about half of what they would have received as a taxable amount if they were serving on operations. Again, it is the coalition's contention that there should be an option for the minister to overrule and make a determination in that area that would enable those on escort duties, or other duties, to continue to receive the allowances because they are operating under orders. Cases such as bringing wounded soldiers or those killed in action home could then also be taken into consideration. I will leave those issues with the minister. I know they are taxation issues and not defence issues and they are outside the minister's purview, but I am sure with great goodwill on both sides we can seek to address some of them.

I would like to raise one further issue. It is time for our nation to rise as one and begin to jointly own the support for the hundreds of our wounded warriors who are returning to our shores. It is time for our country to do something similar to what the British are doing through the establishment of their Help for Heroes foundation. Help for Heroes raises money to support members of the UK armed forces who have been wounded in the service of their country. It is a UK based charity specifically set up to help wounded service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Help for Heroes was founded by Bryn—an ex-serviceman—and Emma Parry in October 2007. The charity is strictly non-political and non-critical; they simply want to help wounded service men and women. They want to assist people who are currently serving or who have served in the armed forces, and their dependants. They want to promote and protect the health of those who have been wounded or injured while serving in the armed forces through the provision of facilities, equipment or services for their rehabilitation, and to make grants to other charities that assist members of the armed forces and their dependants. They consider anyone who volunteers to serve in time of war, knowing that they may risk all, is a hero. I think they are right. They believe these are ordinary people doing extraordinary things and some of them, and their families, will live with the consequences of their service for the rest of their life.

Help for Heroes asks supporters in the UK to simply 'do their bit' to show these extraordinary young men and women that they are cared for by the community. Help for Heroes has so far raised over £125 million—A$184 million. Of that, £107 million has gone directly to helping injured men and women of the UK armed forces. Projects include the rehabilitation complex at Headley Court, money for combat stress, adaptive adventure training, extension of the former North Wales Medical Centre and the creation of a £6 million quick reaction fund to support individuals in need, managed by the service charities. It has been able to spend close to the amount raised as it has also set up the wholly owned trading subsidiary Help for Heroes Trading Co., which sells merchandise and gifts in order to cover administrative overheads. The money is used for providing much needed services that aid wounded soldiers' recovery. The money both funds capital projects and provides individual support in conjunction with delivering charities. Individuals are encouraged to raise money through activities and fundraising events, from baking cakes and shaving heads to parachuting, walking and cycling. It is about encouraging a nation to embrace their own.

I propose a unity ticket between the government and the opposition for us to join together to see what we can do about setting up a foundation in Australia to give the community ownership. I know the support government provides is very good, and the coalition provides bipartisan support for it, but this is about the community; this is about us giving the community an opportunity to come together and help. This is the least we can do as our fighting men and women continue to do what they can to provide peace and security for our nation.

I thank the minister for his update. It is welcome. I thank him for his continued commitment to ensuring the House and indeed the nation is aware of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to indicate to the member for Fadden that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs and I are very happy to take up the suggestions he has made about allowances and support in the community for our wounded warriors.