Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 169 by omitting paragraph (b) and substituting these words ‘regrets the death of these innocent civilians and condemns the Taliban for deliberately targeting civilians and using civilians as unwilling shields for attacks on Afghan and international forces, and’.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes the finding by the United Nations and Afghanistan Government that the military of the United States of America (US) killed at least 90 civilians, including 60 children, in the Afghan village of Nawabad on 21 August and 22 August 2008;

(b)

regrets the deaths of these innocent civilians and condemns the Taliban for deliberately targeting civilians and using civilians as unwilling shields for attacks on Afghan and international forces, and

(c)

calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Smith) to urge the US to acknowledge the civilian death toll of its military operation in Nawabad and to support the Afghanistan Government’s call for a full-scale review of US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization military operations in the wake of the country’s mounting civilian death toll.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Labor cannot support the proposed notice of motion in its current form. Labor would like to place on record its objection to dealing with complex international relations matters such as the one we have before us by means of formal motions. Such motions are blunt instruments. They force parties into black-and-white choices—support or oppose. They do not lend themselves to the nuances which are so necessary in this area of policy. Furthermore, they are too easily misinterpreted by some audiences as statements of policy by the national government.

Labor is happy to work with the minor parties on notices of motion of this nature but will not be pressured into supporting notices of motion in the Senate unless we are completely satisfied with their content. The Australian government is aware of and concerned by the statement of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan, which found convincing evidence that 90 civilians had been killed in the incident. We also note the US military conducted an investigation into the incident and concluded that intense enemy fire justified the actions taken by Afghan and US forces during the operation. Thirty to 35 Taliban militants were killed; five to seven civilians were killed; two civilians were injured and were treated by coalition forces; five Taliban were detained.

The Australian government deeply regrets the death of civilians in Afghanistan as a result of actions by coalition forces. Australia takes the issue of civilian casualties very seriously. Australian troops are deployed under rules of engagement. They are designed to minimise loss of life and strictly comply with Australia’s obligations under domestic and international law. Coalition forces are engaged in Afghanistan to counter insurgents, who show a callous disregard for civilian life, including by intentionally mixing within the civilian population and placing civilians in harm’s way. There is no question but that Afghanistan remains the front line in the fight on terror or that Australia has a direct interest in contributing to efforts to bring security to that country. We know that the Taliban’s success in Afghanistan will have terrible consequences, not just for that country but for Pakistan and the surrounding region, and will provide safe haven and support for terrorist groups operating further afield in South-East Asia, Europe and elsewhere.

Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan clearly demonstrates to our alliance partners and to the international community that we are prepared to share the burden. Australia is part of a large international effort. Over 40 nations are contributing, authorised by the UN and at the invitation of the Afghan government and people.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As Senator Ludwig has outlined, this is indeed a complex issue and one which is best not dealt with on the run. Rather than take up the Senate’s time, I can say that the coalition associates itself with the remarks made by Senator Ludwig in relation to this motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I would be very happy for the government and opposition to agree to a full-scale debate on this matter. We know from the tragic news today from Afghanistan regarding our own defence forces how hugely important this matter is to all Australians. The matter at hand here is a United Nations and Afghan government report that the military of the United States killed at least 90 civilians, including 60 children, in this Afghani village on 21 and 22 August this year.

The motion that I have brought forward echoes the Afghan government’s own call for a full-scale review of the military operations in their country in the wake of the country’s mounting civilian death toll. For want of a debate, this motion will be voted down, I assume, by both the government and the opposition, but what I do say, through you, Deputy President, is that this is an extremely important matter. It is not one we can legislate on but it is one in which Australia is centrally involved. The Greens do not believe our defence forces should be in Afghanistan but, rather, that there should be much greater civilian aid to that country, because of the history of how the Bush administration entered into this conflict, amongst other things. We strongly support this motion. If the government and the opposition are going to oppose motions like this, and this is the right time for it to be brought before the Senate, then I would ask them to open the matter to a full and proper debate.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—For similar reasons, we will be opposing this motion. I think that, with complex foreign affairs issues like this, a simple yes or no answer is extremely difficult. For similar reasons, Family First will oppose this motion as well.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Ludwig and other senators who oppose this motion. Should there be a debate, I look forward to participating in it, but at this stage I associate myself with the remarks of Senators Ludwig, Ellison and Fielding.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.