David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before question time, the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives last week were an impressive display of bipartisan commitment to sustaining our mission in Afghanistan until that mission is complete. It would be very unfortunate indeed if our mission were to become the subject of partisan bickering. That is why I was disappointed by some of the comments made over the past few weeks about the level of support which we are supplying to our forces in Afghanistan. Some of these comments were both inaccurate and ill-informed, and I am pleased that there now appears to be a much greater understanding of these issues.

We, the government, are guided in these matters mainly by the advice of the Chief of the Defence Force, in whom we have the highest confidence, and who draws in turn on the advice of our commanders in the field and, of course, our allies. In addition, the government keeps these issues under constant review. The Senate should understand that our forces in Oruzgan Province have a range of capabilities suitable to their tasks. But not all of these capabilities are provided by the ADF. Some are provided through our coalition partners in ISAF. Capabilities such as artillery, mortars and attack helicopters are available through our partners when necessary. We should not try to duplicate tasks that our partners might be better placed to carry out. That is why items such as tanks, for example, are not required for our current mission in Oruzgan Province. Far from being complacent, we are being highly proactive in meeting the needs of our forces in Afghanistan. As the Minister for Defence pointed out in his speech in the other place, Australian troops now have access to more artillery and mortar support than they did a year ago, and they have access to ISAF attack helicopters and close air support from fighter aircraft when necessary.

We are constantly monitoring the needs of our forces in Afghanistan, which of course vary from time to time according to the tasks they undertake. The force protection review, which was commissioned by the government in July 2009, has led to a further package of measures and has seen over $1 billion in new measures to further support our troops in their operations. These measures are kept under constant review. The minister said in his speech, for example, that the government will continue to examine measures that can be taken against the improvised explosive devices which have caused a number of our casualties.

This is why our forces are not well served by calls for more troops or different troops, more equipment or different equipment from people who are not qualified to make such calls; nor are they helped by tactical advice from politicians or newspaper commentators. Politicians debating in the pages of our newspaper or on our television screens small unit tactics does not in any way assist the mission. Any student of military history will tell you that such micro management by politicians has on many occasions in military history led to catastrophe. I hope a few lessons have been learned about the danger of entering into these debates.

The Prime Minister, in her speech last week, gave a very clear picture of what we are doing in Afghanistan and why we are doing it. The opposition has supported our continuing mission, and I welcome that support. I respect the views of those senators who dissent from that consensus, but I do not share their pessimism. I strongly believe that our mission in Afghanistan is necessary for our national security, for the stability of our region and for the future of the people of Afghanistan. I believe that it is completely consistent with the white paper on defence and defence planning. I also believe that our objectives are realistic and can be achieved within a reasonable time frame. I have thought very hard about the morality of what we are doing in Afghanistan, as I am sure all senators have. I remain convinced that what we doing there is necessary and is right.

I finish by saying that I strongly admire the professionalism and the patriotism of our ADF men and women, both full time and part time. Alas, the world we live in remains a place with threats and dangers and it is a matter of fact that democracies still have need of citizens who are imbued with the warrior spirit.

Debate (on motion by Senator Furner) adjourned.