Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the end of 2006 and again this month, the first free elections for a self-governing Aceh were conducted. These elections were conducted in a manner which befits a burgeoning democracy and resulted in the valid election of officials to guide Aceh through the next phase of its development. Election observers from the European Union, whilst noting some minor and localised attempted interference by members of the Indonesian armed forces, declared the ballot a success undiminished by any attempts to influence voters in an undemocratic manner. These elections constitute a triumph for the province of Aceh, which has undergone extraordinary turbulence and upheaval—both natural and man-made, one would have to say.

In the period of just over two years since Indonesia was struck by the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami, considerable progress has also been made in the rebuilding of important infrastructure and services. The Acehnese themselves have made very significant steps forward of their own for peace, for security and for redevelopment.

Australia has been able to play a significant part in this reconstruction through the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development, the AIPRD, which is a five-year billion-dollar strategy to efficiently and rapidly restore the present and future prospects of Indonesians in the wake of the tsunami. In order to assist the Indonesian government, particularly with donor coordination planning, our government committed $3 million for that purpose to Indonesia’s Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority for Aceh and Nias. In Australia itself, private citizens donated a total of $380 million to this cause, demonstrating that the people of this country have the capacity to respond decisively and with significant personal assistance when a circumstance clearly demands it.

The province of Aceh was particularly badly hit. The loss of life caused by the tsunami was of a scale I think unimaginable in Australia—that is, in the order of 168,000 people dead. That devastation was exacerbated by the complete obliteration of property, which left half a million people homeless. We all perhaps have different mental pictures of that day and the media reports thereafter, but I know that I will never forget watching Tim Palmer, the ABC reporter, walking into Banda Aceh and his powerful reporting of that scene.

It was absolutely impossible for people to know with any certainty where they should even start to rebuild their homes. And without that sort of certainty it is unreasonable to expect anything very much in the way of stability and cohesion in Aceh itself. To that end, and as part of the contribution, our government provided $40 million for the local governance and community infrastructure program, which has assisted in the extraordinarily painstaking task of redefining and codifying land and property boundaries. Seventy thousand families were assisted in that particular manner alone. That expanded upon the work which had to be done in remapping the whole battered coast of Aceh, which was essential to establishing a recognised standard of legal property regulations. That that was even necessary underlines the extraordinary destruction that was wrought on the area. It also underlines the basic, pragmatic, grassroots approach taken by both Australia and Indonesia, other donors, aid agencies and NGOs to ensure that rebuilding activities have been appropriately targeted to provide lasting and meaningful development.

At the time, our initial response to the tragedy in Aceh was obviously focused on the immediate needs of an extraordinarily stricken and exposed population. We were able to help in providing over 1,200 temporary shelters to alleviate the housing crisis. Our aid is now directed clearly towards five major sectors: health, education, infrastructure, livelihoods and governance—and that is with a view to offering the Acehnese the best possible opportunities to rebuild for the medium term and into the future.

As for long-term benefits to the Acehnese, though, I think it is worth noting that few pieces of infrastructure could be more valuable than a functioning port. Banda Aceh’s port was absolutely razed by the tsunami, and so reconstruction materials were denied even the simplest, most effective access to Aceh itself. That access is indispensable, and so it is a major priority to which the partnership was able to make a commitment of $10 million. The port is now able to service 900 passengers per day, a figure that local port managers expect to rise to 1,500 in the near future. It is a port which, reconstructed, will develop into an economic hub for Aceh, into a very important source of growth for all of Aceh and to the significant benefit of all of its citizens.

Other crucial infrastructure investments encompass a total of 200 sites, including schools, village halls, libraries, hospitals and education and training facilities. By the end of this year, in addition to the three schools and two education offices already newly built, there will be 14 new education offices up and running. Much of the rebuilding work, be it construction, sanitation or water reconnection, is being undertaken by local Acehnese women, who represent half of the 1,300 people who have been trained by Australia to execute the reconstruction.

Over 850 local health workers have been trained, and 4,800 students have already received scholarships which will enable them to train as nurses, midwives and healthcare workers. This is a very important investment not just in the physical rebuilding of Aceh but in the people and the fibre, if you like, of the community of Aceh. The skills that are being provided in this process are essential tools in the redevelopment following such a devastating loss of life.

In order to ensure that Aceh has a viable future, local people are the ones who need to be equipped with skills and capital that will facilitate the rebuilding of the province. This is the method that we, in conjunction with the Indonesian government and the AIPRD, favour and that all Australians, it would seem, favour in general. It means, one hopes, that the wheels will not fall off when officials, reconstruction workers and NGOs who are working within Aceh have to leave, and that we can help ensure that Aceh flourishes in the future. And it will do so because the Acehnese themselves, with the benefit of funding and guidance from Australia and other donors, but at their own direction and with their own engagement, are the fundamental driving force—a driving force which must and will come from the local population.

The effective reporting process for the spending of dollars, which has been put in place both through the AIPRD and also in relation to NGO spending, is a very important response to community interest in how contributions are actually dealt with in the current climate. We had evidence on that matter at the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s roundtable on the post-tsunami response which was held last year. I note that there is ongoing interest in those reports as they are received.

It is of course true to say that it is not only natural disasters that have beset Aceh since it was included in the fledgling Indonesian nation almost 60 years ago. In fact, between 1949 and the signing of the 2005 peace agreement between GAM and the Indonesian government, about 15,000 people died in the armed struggle for Acehnese independence. That struggle had its roots in the composition of the Indonesian state and had literally festered for decades. GAM, or the Free Aceh Movement, was formed in 1976 from a body which was already agitating against control by Jakarta, and it was felt by many Acehnese that inclusion in Indonesia was unjust as they had not formed part of the Netherlands East Indies in those days. Throughout the decades that followed, Jakarta’s military presence in Aceh varied with circumstance, it is fair to say, until finally there was a withdrawal of almost 50,000 Indonesian troops from Aceh.

Through the efforts of the European Union, particularly Finland, and concerned regional players, including the United States and Australia to greater and lesser degrees, as well as very important non-government organisations and, most importantly, extremely brave and courageous Acehnese, a peace accord between GAM and Jakarta was finally signed in 2005. As I referred to at the beginning of my remarks, the first round of free elections for the governorship of a self-governing Aceh was held in December last year.

Both GAM and Indonesia made concessions in the resolution of the struggle. In return for the granting of self-government, GAM relinquished its demands for full independence. Now a former GAM ‘rebel’, Irwandi Yusuf, is the democratically elected Governor of Aceh. I think it is fair to say that if both sides of the conflict had been unwilling to negotiate and unwilling to look at compromise—that is, not to put the greater benefit of Aceh and Indonesia in general ahead of partisan personal and political concerns—then armed conflict in Aceh may persist today.

The particular lesson of the arrival of peace and self-determination in Aceh I think heralds a broader message for all troubled parts of the world. It certainly gives me pause for thought that, in major part, the prolific loss of life from the tsunami ultimately brought these parties together, recognising the commonalities they shared rather than the continued emphasis of differences. But nevertheless the message is clear: in nation building and in the development of democracy it is perseverance in the pursuit of democracy and freedom which can and does bear fruit. To abandon it because it appears too hard is not an option.