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

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel have been deployed in Afghanistan since 2001,

(ii)

the Minister for Defence (Senator Faulkner) recently announced a further increase in the number of Australian troops in that country, and

(iii)

there is speculation that the deployment of ADF personnel in Afghanistan may be extended for a further 5 years; and

(b)

calls on the Government to debate the options for Australian troops in Afghanistan, including their return to Australia.

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

by leave—I thank Senator Brown for the motion regarding Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan but the government will not be supporting the motion. Senator Brown has proposed that the Senate note that:

(i) Australian Defence Force … personnel have been deployed in Afghanistan since 2001,

Australia first deployed forces in late 2001 and these were subsequently withdrawn in late 2002. During 2003 Australia separately deployed one Australian Defence Force officer in support of the United Nations mission as well as one de-mining expert. It was not until 2005 that a substantial Australian force was redeployed to Afghanistan as part of the United Nations mandated International Security Assistance Force. As such, the motion is misleading as Australian defence personnel have not been continuously deployed in Afghanistan since 2001.

The motion states that the Minister for Defence recently announced a further increase in the number of Australian troops. Senator Faulkner has made no such announcement. In April this year the Prime Minister did announce an increase in Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan to support our two fundamental interests: deny sanctuary to terrorists who have threatened and killed Australian citizens and to support our enduring commitment to the United States under the ANZUS Treaty, which was formally invoked at the time of the September 11 attacks.

I would also note that the speculation referred to in the motion is media speculation. As the Prime Minister noted, Australia has increased its contribution to Afghanistan, not as a blank cheque, but with the explicit objective of training Afghan forces. This is so that responsibility for security in Oruzgan province can in time be handed over to Afghans themselves. The Australian government has no interest in Australian forces being in Afghanistan for a day longer than is necessary.

Lastly, I note that the Senate already has the opportunity to debate Australia’s troop presence in Afghanistan. Senator Faulkner made a statement to parliament on Afghanistan on 12 August. This was to ensure that the Australian parliament and the Australian people are properly informed and are able to make considered judgements about our involvement in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The statement was open to debate and we welcomed the bipartisan support.

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

by leave—Isn’t that extraordinary, Mr Deputy President, that the government does not want to support a motion for a debate that it should host about the deployment of our Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan? We have seen the rising death toll of Australians who are committed to this nation’s interest, going at the behest of the government—not the parliament, but at the behest of this and the previous government—to Afghanistan. What the Greens are calling for in this motion is a proper parliamentary debate. We owe that to our Defence Force personnel as well as to this nation.

The minister quibbles about matters that are in the preamble to the proposed resolution that there be a debate. They are of course the matters that ought to be debated. For example, he noted that Defence Force personnel were in Afghanistan in 2001 and withdrawn in 2002. That is because the deputy sheriff, former Prime Minister Howard, withdrew Defence Force personnel because the Bush administration did so then to invade Baghdad. The invasion of Iraq was a monumental error in terms of Afghanistan, for which our Defence Force personnel should not now be paying. It is absolutely essential in this democracy that we debate the deployment of personnel. Senator Ludlum has a bill before the House, which ought to be passed in my judgment, but in the absence of the parliament debating the deployment of troops, and that being a matter that is determined by the Prime Minister, we should at least have an honest, full-ranging and open debate in this chamber.

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

by leave—The chamber would not know this, but I have been speaking to Minister Faulkner and the previous minister for defence about some sort of delegation going to Afghanistan. I am deadset serious about this because this is a good opportunity. We should have a debate. I do not think the debate should be focused on saying that they should be returned, but I do think we should have a debate. This is a very serious issue. People are putting their lives at risk in Afghanistan. We have gone there for the right reasons, but we just need to make sure we know where we are currently at with this whole war and what is happening. I do not want to have a debate that leads to people saying, ‘I’m biased; just bring them home,’ or ‘I’m biased; just keep them there.’ We need to have a fair dinkum debate, and I call on the government to look at some sort of cross-party delegation to look at this issue in the Senate so that all parties can have a genuine look at it. Then we can have a decent debate rather than doing it on an ad hoc basis through a notice of motion and through bills. We should genuinely look at this as a cross-party issue in the Senate and look into this issue in some detail. It is very important, and I am on the record with the previous minister for defence, and this one, about some sort of cross-party delegation. Rather than shoving it off to some other way of doing it, we should do it seriously, and this chamber should seriously debate it.

Question put:

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