Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the first time that many in this parliament will have debated the presence of our troops in overseas conflict zones. The question, however, takes on an altogether new meaning when you are a member of the defence family. This in fact is the third time that I have confronted this question. The first was in 2003 when a family member prepared to deploy to Iraq at the commencement of those hostilities, the second was in 2006 when he deployed to Afghanistan with the Reconstruction Task Force, and this is the third. Anyone placed in this position knows only too well the mixture of emotions. You reflect hourly—or, certainly if not hourly, daily—on the safety of your family member, the validity of the mission, the wisdom of executive government in sending them and the risk that they and their fellow soldiers confront. You cannot help but reflect on what your reaction would be in the event of receiving news that a family member is wounded or even worse. I cite yesterday’s news when we were advised that four Australian soldiers were wounded last week in Kandahar. Every Australian feels deeply for those soldiers and their families, as we do indeed for those who have been wounded elsewhere, or for the 21 who have died in Afghanistan.

As a person who was not in the Australian parliament at that time, I used to reflect on what I might say to the Prime Minister had our family been placed in that dreadful position. Ironically, here I am today. For me, this is a very personal debate. We are in the parliament to address an issue and we are somewhat remote from deployment. But let me assure you that everybody in the defence family is watching our contributions and the outcome of this debate, and I include both serving members as well as their families. For them, this also is very personal.

I applaud the opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss in open forum our deployment of troops overseas, so long as that debate is informed, mature and respects our obligations. However, I am firmly convinced that the decision to deploy our troops is that of the executive government of the day and not that of parliament in open session. We simply cannot have a circumstance in which every member of parliament, or senator, is briefed adequately by defence and others for the purpose.

Whilst I welcome the opportunity for vigorous debate and the presentation of alternative views which will emerge, there is a distinct and serious obligation on each of us to ensure that we say nothing to cause Australia to descend into the chasm of national shame which followed our withdrawal at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. I refer, of course, to the demonising of Australian troops upon their return. The decision to deploy them was political. They simply did as soldiers have always done and are doing Afghanistan—that is, complying with the demand of executive government and the orders of their superiors and performing to the best of their abilities. Whatever may be our views of Afghanistan, our presence and the possible outcomes, all of us have a clear responsibility to ensure that the Australian community differentiates between those who make the decision for our troops’ deployment and those who carry out the orders.

Why are we in Afghanistan? We are not a major player on the world stage. We do of course, however, perform well above our weight. We are proud of our contribution in the region and around the world. We have a strong tradition of providing aid and assistance in emergencies, even recent ones such as the tsunami, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Of course whilst we always could do more, we have a proud and strong record in Australia of long-term agricultural, medical and educational support throughout South-East Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific Island regions. I would say that it is entirely appropriate that we extend that philosophy into military support in these same spheres.

We all know, of course, of the strong alliance we have with the United States. It is pivotal to our security policy and it brings with it an obligation to honour that commitment. At the same time, Australia must examine on a case-by-case basis, having regard to our own commercial, regional and security objectives, those actions in which we join the United States. I also believe it is appropriate, in the context of Afghanistan, that we are seen to support the USA and our many NATO allies in the International Security Assistance Force or ISAF. We have long, strong, historic commercial and defence relations with many of those who are involved.

I turn to support for our troops on the ground. Contingent on executive government making the decision to deploy our troops, it is essential in my view that they are adequately resourced in terms of personnel, equipment and support. Having met in April of this year with ADF personnel at many levels in the UAE at Al Minhad, I can attest to the seriousness with which each and every one of them undertakes his or her role and their commitment to the task. It was impressive. I have, however, formed the view that we can do more to assist our front-line troops by providing them with more firepower through indirect weapons support on the ground. My own experience in my career involved in emergency situations, especially those remote from a home base, has instilled in me one principle: it is far better to have extra resources at hand and not need them than to need them and not have them. I fear we are in a circumstance in which we have placed our troops in need without supply. Our troops on patrol on the ground need additional assets such as mortars and artillery to provide that dedicated generic indirect fire support in those circumstances when their own safety is threatened and a successful outcome of a mission is compromised. I believe we saw evidence of that only recently in a 3½-hour firefight when inadequate support was offered. These assets are already in our ADF ordnance supply and could readily, in my view, be deployed into the theatre of action.

As a parent of someone who deployed into war zones, I was always clear that Australian troops enjoyed the same level of protection and conditions of engagement as those of United States troops. It was my belief that our troops, when acting under fire and in accordance with the orders of their superiors, enjoyed the same level of immunity from prosecution as their American counterparts in the event of the regrettable outcome of civilian casualties being found in a conflict; that local command in the theatre of operation had the capacity to deal with violations. I believed that Australia, like America, have not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I now learn that that is not the case. America did not ratify that treaty; Australia did. So what then happens, I ask, when Australian soldiers are engaged in the same action alongside American troops? Ours might face the prospect of criminal proceedings and prosecution, with dire consequence if found guilty, while US troops will not. To me, this is unacceptable.

The parliament sends our troops into a war zone. Military commanders direct operations and targets. Are we giving them the necessary protection when the outcome differs from that which we expect? This is no ordinary conflict in Afghanistan. The Taliban launch offensives from within homes in villages. They keep women and children in compounds in front of them to act as shields for their own protection. The terms of engagement with the terrorists are radically different in Afghanistan from conventional warfare. I believe we need to re-examine our position in relation to the Rome Statute of the ICC. We need to re-establish consistency with US soldiers, with whom our own troops are so often involved in direct line of fire.

I can assure the Senate that, as the parent of a serving officer at that time, I would have resisted my son’s deployment to Afghanistan with all the force I could muster had I realised the legal risk to which he was exposed in carrying out his duties.

I now turn to the role of the ADF. The emphasis of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan has shifted from reconstruction to training of the Afghan army. I would urge that we do not abandon the excellent initiatives of the earlier objectives of trades training and reconstruction in the villages in Oruzgan province. I am disappointed that the Australian media have not adequately informed the Australian community of the very many successful reconstruction projects which have been undertaken under the direction of Australian Defence Force personnel. The program has been aimed at trades training for young men in the villages so that they can conduct building projects in their own and neighbouring villages. This is the Australian military at its best: consulting with village elders to determine necessary projects, building the skills level of those within the village to be able to perform those construction tasks, providing the building materials to ensure projects can be undertaken, as well as the supervision, and then the security to safely see those projects through to their completion. This is genuinely ‘teaching Mohammed to fish rather than giving him a fish’.

Projects completed over the last few years in Oruzgan in Afghanistan include the building of schools for both boys and girls, health clinics, wells closer to villages for drawing water and, I must say from my own professional background, even a veterinary health facility. As we would all know, the goodwill generated from these projects is immense and ongoing. I urge that the Australian community are made aware of the excellence of these programs. Let us not lose the emphasis of this reconstruction or the value to the local communities.

The focus, of course, has now turned to training Afghan army personnel. If we are to succeed in this endeavour there are some fundamentals that I believe need to be addressed. Our troops have built up excellent relations with Afghan army personnel. They are respected as good soldiers, fearless, enthusiastic and loyal. However, it is my understanding they are poorly paid and they rarely return home for leave, with the inevitable result that desertion rates are unacceptably high. This could surely be addressed by them being paid in a timely manner, with a significant proportion of those funds going to their families in the villages from which they come, and allowing them the opportunity to go back to the areas, remote from Oruzgan, from where they are drawn. Not surprisingly, the inability for them to be able to do this means the rates of desertion are high, and failure to return after leave is equally unacceptably high. I believe the ADF in association with its ISAF coalition partners can address these issues.

Many in our community believe that the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorists do not pose a threat to Australia or Australians commensurate with the cost of our response. This is no doubt a debate that will be had. But I, for one, am satisfied as a result of the events of the last few years in this region and around the world that the threat is real, it is ongoing, it must be addressed and we must be part of that process. I accept that it is a complex issue, creating as many questions as it answers, but this only serves to strengthen my view that executive government has made the correct decision to place our troops there and to maintain them. The questions include: can the terrorists move across borders from Afghanistan if NATO led coalition forces exert sufficient pressure? Do other countries such as Pakistan have the capacity and the will to counteract terrorists in their countries if the threat continues and expands? Does the Afghanistan government have the capacity to overcome the Taliban, even if they have the desire? Is there room for negotiation between the parties to achieve a reasonable peace in that country and, if so, what will be the relevant position of power from which each side will negotiate? I believe the terms of these negotiations should surely include: the rights of women and children, evolution towards some form of democracy, and the basic rights which we take for granted, including universal education, health, security and freedom of expression—some of which have been reported already in this place.

If Australia is to contribute to these outcomes, we must continue our active service role in association with ISAF member countries. I believe there is a legitimate role for the ADF to be part of the NATO led mission in Afghanistan. The decision to deploy, to remain and, ultimately, to exit should be that of executive government and not that of members and senators voting en masse.

To conclude, if we are to deploy our troops to active war zones, of which Afghanistan is demonstrably one, then they must be adequately supported in terms of troop numbers, assets available to them and legal protection. If we err, we should err on the side of caution and provide more than we believe they need. Without going into the events confronting three of our military personnel, I believe we must provide a level of protection for those who are in active service, under fire, so that they receive the protection that they want and that we as a community believe they deserve.

In the annals of Australian military history there are many examples where the innovative use of assets has turned a battle to our advantage. We need look no further than the World War I battle at Le Hamel, on the Somme, when General Monash, for the first time in military history, combined the use of artillery, infantry, air support and tanks to achieve an objective in less than two hours which others had spent many months and far too many lives failing to achieve by conventional means. Our troops need to know that they have our support. They need to know that we will not spare our assets, our time or our attention to them.

The decision was taken to deploy our personnel to support the NATO led coalition in Afghanistan. I know from discussions with serving personnel in the Middle East and those who have returned that they are proud of our contribution and that they fully support the deployment. We must stay the course until the objective is met or a solution is reached. Only then will we have honoured the memory of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict.