Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to return to a prior item on the agenda—namely, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on Australia’s involvement in peace-keeping operations.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I want to talk to the tabling of a rather important report into Australia’s more recent involvement in peace-keeping operations. It is an important report because, over time, the nature of our peace-keeping missions has changed quite dramatically. In the early years, Australia served in small contingents, primarily as military observers monitoring truce lines with the consent of the host countries, particularly in the Middle East, Syria and Egypt. In recent times, though, Australia has engaged in peace-keeping missions that have been both complex and broad in scope. Most of these operations now involve intrastate conflict, internal conflict, and have been difficult and at times quite dangerous undertakings. Australians deployed to these complex missions have included more recently not only military personnel but also active representatives from agencies such as DFAT, AusAID, the Australian Electoral Commission and Treasury, to name a few, as well as large numbers of police and, increasingly, scientific experts.

Regional engagement is a major element in Australia’s current involvement in peacekeeping. Indeed, Australia’s significant commitment and lead role in operations in the region is one of the more recent notable developments. For example, as we all know, Australia commands the International Force for East Timor and leads the regional mission to the Solomon Islands. These operations indicate the growing importance of Australia engaging in peacekeeping and leading peace-keeping missions in this part of the world. They also show that the scope of today’s peace-keeping operations has expanded and continues to expand to focus on helping to create long-term stability in what is properly described as a set of fragile states.

The committee’s inquiry centred on Australia’s whole-of-government, whole-of-nation approach to peace-keeping operations—that is, from the earliest decision making and planning stages to the final reporting and evaluation stages that occur. The committee’s two key recommendations were directed at developing and improving whole-of-government policy on Australia’s engagement in peacekeeping. The committee found a most compelling argument for a white paper on Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping. Despite dramatic changes to peace-keeping operations, particularly over the last 10 or 12 years, and Australia’s increased and broadening engagement in such missions, there is, to date, no policy document that presents a whole-of-government approach to peacekeeping. The committee believes it is time for such a document to be put together and published by government. The production of a white paper would provide government and its agencies with the opportunity to review their policies and practices and would enable a better understanding of how each group’s activities contribute to the whole-of-government effort.

The committee welcomed the government’s decision to establish an Asia-Pacific centre for civil-military cooperation. Based on the evidence, however, the committee could see advantages in expanding the scope of the institution’s mandate. It was concerned that important decisions were being made about the role, the function and structure of the centre without a proper scoping study. There are now a number of highly regarded overseas institutions in this field. The committee recommended that a specially selected task force conduct such a scoping study. The team would visit existing peace-keeping institutes to help them formulate recommendations on the centre’s design to ensure that it becomes the hub of a national network of institutions, a national repository of information and learning on peacekeeping, a regional centre of excellence and a vital part of the international web of similar institutes throughout the world.

The committee made recommendations about the fundamental elements that should be articulated in a mission’s mandate. In this regard, the committee emphasised the importance of having an exit strategy. The committee argued that an exit strategy would provide a road map—that is, a structured plan for achieving the stated purpose—and contain benchmarks against which progress toward those objectives can be measured. It recommended that, when considering a proposed peace-keeping operation, the government examine in detail the mission’s exit strategy to ensure Australia’s contribution is part of a well-planned and structured approach to achieving clearly stated objectives.

A number of recommendations were made to ensure peacekeepers are better prepared to meet the challenge of today’s mission. In particular, the committee emphasised the importance of interoperability at all levels and between all elements of an operation. It found the ADF and the AFP have not always been able to operate smoothly together in the field. This is due in some measure to a lack of familiarity and important differences in work culture. It also found current peace-keeping training programs for Australian public servants could be better structured in keeping with the whole-of-government approach. Australian NGOs could also improve their standard of training for their people who are sometimes involved in peace-keeping operations. The committee recommended that defence review its CIMIC doctrine and consider ways to strengthen its CIMIC capability. The committee also noted that NGOs could facilitate better coordination with the military through better organisation and liaison amongst themselves. DFAT and AusAID could also assist cooperation and coordination between government and NGO sectors by extending activities beyond briefings to joint training and collaborative planning.

The committee recognised that the relationship with the host country and other partners in a peace-keeping operation is critical to the success of a mission. However, building a constructive coalition sometimes presents quite large challenges. The committee found that to produce effective peacekeepers Australia must prepare its personnel to be part of an Australian force, a partner of the host country and a member of a coalition of participating countries.

The committee stressed the importance of predeployment language and cultural awareness training. It also recommended that exchange programs and joint exercises with personnel from countries in the region continue as a high priority. It suggested that such activities form part of a broader coherent whole-of-government strategy to build a greater peacekeeping capacity in this part of the world.

In considering the health, safety and wellbeing of Australian peacekeepers, the committee identified a number of concerns. They related to the accessibility of data on the health of Australian peacekeepers. There are inadequacies in the ADF’s health records management and postdeployment care of peacekeepers with respect to mental health problems. The report made a number of recommendations to rectify these identified deficiencies.

I have referred to the committee’s recommendations for a white paper and for an expanded and more ambitious Asia-Pacific centre for civil-military cooperation. They are the means to inculcate a culture of continuous learning and continuous improvement in Australia’s peacekeepers. The committee noted that if government agencies are to learn from and build upon their experiences in peacekeeping then they need to strengthen their evaluation and lessons-learnt processes.

Last year marked the 60th anniversary of Australia’s commitment to peacekeeping. I take this opportunity to acknowledge all who have contributed to a series of peace-keeping missions over the years. Finally, I wish to place on the public record my thanks for the invaluable assistance provided by Dr Dermody and her staff on the relevant Senate committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.