David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate a speech by Senator Minchin, who has had to leave this place for personal reasons.

Leave granted.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

A national government has no more important task than defending the nation, its people and their interests.

That is why we take so seriously any decision to go to war.

The war in Afghanistan is no different.

Today I will answer five questions Australians are asking about the war:

• why Australia is involved in Afghanistan;
• what the international community is seeking to achieve and how;
• what Australia’s contribution is to this international effort – our mission;
• what progress is being made;
• and finally, what the future is of our commitment in Afghanistan.

Of course, while our troops remain in the field, I must be responsible in how much I say.

But in answering those questions, I want to be as frank as I can be with the Australian people.

I want to paint a very honest picture of the difficulties and challenges facing our mission in Afghanistan.

The new international strategy and the surge in international troops responded to a deterioriating security situation.

This means more fighting.

More violence.

It risks more casualties.

There will be many hard days ahead.

1. Why Australia is Involved in Afghanistan

Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan.

One, to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.

A place where attacks on us and our allies begin.

Two, to stand firmly by our Alliance commitment to the United States.

Formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

Last month we marked the ninth anniversary of Al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks.

Before September 11 Al-Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan under the Taliban government.

A safe haven where they could recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill.              

On September 11, Al-Qaeda murdered more than three thousand people.

Thousands of Americans – citizens of our ally the United States.

People from many other countries.

Ten Australians. Ten of our own. Never forgotten.

And millions of people were terrified.

So we went to Afghanistan to make sure it would never again be a safe haven for Al-Qaeda.

We went with our friends and allies, as part of the international community.

We went with the support of the United Nations.

The war has put pressure on Al-Qaeda’s core leadership.

Killed some. Captured others.

Forced many into hiding. Forced them all on the defensive.

Al-Qaeda has been dealt a severe blow.

But Al-Qaeda remains a resilient and persistent network. Our successes against it in Afghanistan are only part of our effort against terrorism. We are working to counter the rise of affiliated groups in new areas such as Somalia and Yemen, and violent extremism and terrorist groups in Pakistan.

That is why we support efforts in those countries, with those governments, to target terrorist groups there as well.

The terror did not end on September 11.

Since 2001, some 100 Australians have been killed in extremists’ attacks overseas. Among them:

Eighty-eight Australians were killed in the Bali bombing in 2002.

Four Australians were killed in the second Bali bombing in 2005.

Our embassy has been bombed in Jakarta.

In each of these cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan.

If the insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed, if the international community were to withdraw, then Afghanistan could once again become a safe haven for terrorists.

Al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill would be far greater than it is today.

And the propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous.

So the goal of Australia and the international community is clear: to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan.

2. What the international community is seeking to achieve: the new international strategy

The international community has been in Afghanistan a long time.

Nine years.

The Australian people are entitled to know what we are trying to achieve and when our troops can come home.

Removing the Taliban government in 2001 and pursuing Al-Qaeda in the years since has made a crucial difference in preventing terrorist attacks.

From 2001 to mid-2006, US and Coalition forces and Afghan troops fought relatively low levels of insurgent violence.

The international force in Afghanistan was focussed on a stabilisation mission.

And there were no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005.

Through this period, few would now argue, US and international attention turned heavily to Iraq.

Australia’s substantial military involvement in Afghanistan resumed when the Special Forces Task Force was redeployed there for twelve months from September 2005 in support of international efforts to target key insurgents.

Violence increased further in mid-2006, particularly in the east and the south. Due to significant intimidation and the absence of effective governance in many rural areas, some Afghans turned to the Taliban at this time.

The mission moved to a counter-insurgency focus.

Australia’s contribution increased from October 2008 on as we took a growing role in training and mentoring in the southern Afghanistan province of Uruzgan.

However the international counter-insurgency mission was not adequately resourced until 2009.

In December 2009 President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan and a surge of 30 000 US troops.

NATO has contributed more. So has Australia.

I believe we now have the right strategy, an experienced commander in General Petraeus, and the resources needed to deliver the strategy.

The overarching goal of the new strategy is to enable transition.

That is, to prepare the Government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility for its own security.

But our vital national interests, in preventing Afghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack us and in supporting our ally, do not end with transition.

Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists.

Australia’s key role in that mission, training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan, is expected to take 2 to 4 years.

And President Karzai has said the Afghan Government expects the transition process to be complete by the end of 2014.

But let me be clear – this refers to the Afghan Government taking lead responsibility for security.

The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014. And Australia will remain engaged.

There will still be a need for Australians in a supporting role. There will still be a role for training and other defence co-operation.

The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue.

And we will continue to promote Afghan-led re-integration of former insurgents who are willing to lay down their arms, turn their backs on terrorism and accept the Afghan constitution.

We expect this support, training and development task to continue in some form through this decade at least.

Our mission in Afghanistan is not nation-building. That is the task of the Afghan Government and people. With international aid and development, we will continue to help were we can.

But entrenching a functioning democratic Afghan state could be the work of a generation of Afghan people.

The new international strategy is comprehensive.

It is focussed on:

• Protecting the civilian population – conducting operations together with the Afghan National Security Forces to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency.
• Training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces – to enable them to assume a lead role in providing security.
• And facilitating improvements in governance and socio-economic development – working with the Afghan authorities and the United Nations to strengthen institutions and deliver basic services.

The new strategy promotes efforts towards political reconciliation.

It also includes a greater focus on partnership with Pakistan to address violent extremism in the border regions that threatens both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And the new international strategy is well resourced.

The international strategy is implemented by a combined civilian and military effort under the International Security Assistance Force.

This involves 47 troop-contributing nations, working alongside a host of international bodies and aid agencies, with and at the invitation of the Afghan Government, and under a United Nations Security Council mandate.

A mandate renewed unanimously just this month.

This coalition includes many long-standing friends and allies of Australia, including the United States and New Zealand; the United Kingdom, Canada and France.

Singapore and Korea, among other Asian countries, contribute.

And several Muslim countries are involved, including Turkey, Jordan and Malaysia.

At the Asia-Europe meeting, I spent some time with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib

I was particularly struck by what he said was one of Malaysia’s most important contributions to Afghanistan: doctors ... doctors who are Islamic women.

They are able to work with Afghan women as few foreign medical professionals can.

We are part of a truly international effort in Afghanistan.

To ensure the new international strategy can be delivered, last December the United States committed to a military and civilian surge in Afghanistan.

The elements of this surge are now reaching full-strength.

Once fully deployed, this will take Coalition force numbers to roughly 140,000.

US forces on the ground have tripled since early 2009.

The total force now has the resources required to deliver a comprehensive international strategy focussed on counter-insurgency and designed to deliver transition.

3. Australia’s Contribution to the International Effort

Australia’s involvement makes a real difference in Afghanistan.

The Government supports the new international strategy and we have supported the surge.

Australia has increased our troop contribution to Afghanistan by around 40 per cent in the past 18 months.

We now have around 1,550 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan.

Our military force is complemented by around 50 Australian civilians.

Earlier this year we took over leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Uruzgan to spearhead our civilian efforts, and increased our civilian commitment to Afghanistan by 50 per cent.

In fact since 2001 we have committed over $740 million in development assistance to Afghanistan.

The main focus of the Australian effort in Afghanistan is directed towards Uruzgan province.

It is a difficult job.

Uruzgan province lies in southern Afghanistan.

Around 500 000 people live there – roughly the population of Tasmania, across an area about one third the size of that state.

Nearly three-quarters of the land is dry and mountainous. Most of the people live in a few major valleys alongside the rivers.

Subsistence agriculture and poppy farming are the main ways to earn a living.

Water is a precious and highly contested resource and overall economic prospects are poor.

School attendance is low, and illiteracy is high.

In fact, the female literacy rate in Uruzgan is less than one per cent. For men it is only ten per cent.

In Uruzgan, Australia’s soldiers and civilians are part of Combined Team-Uruzgan.

Combined Team-Uruzgan is a new structure that brings the military, policing, political and development elements of our assistance under a single command.

The Team is commanded by a senior United States military officer, Colonel Creighton, and the senior civilian official is an Australian diplomat, Mr Bernard Philip.

I met them both during my visit. We are lucky to have them.

The Team is built around an Australian-US partnership, with contributions from a number of countries including New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia.

Combined Team-Uruzgan was established following the Dutch drawdown in August.

We appointed our Senior Civilian Representative to lead the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team and co-ordinate all International Security Assistance Force civilian activities in the province.

The Government has worked closely with the Dutch and US Governments to ensure Australian soldiers and civilians have every support they need through the period of this handover.

I welcome the Dutch Government’s decision to extend their attack helicopter support.

This is part of a broader International Security Assistance Force contribution from which Australia and all contributing nations benefit. Australia’s contribution of two Chinook helicopters is part of this.

While in Afghanistan and Europe I met with:

Colonel Creighton, commanding Combined Team-Uruzgan;

General Petraeus, commanding the International Security Assistance Force;

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen

And the then caretaker Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan Balkenende

In each of these meetings, I emphasized the strength of my view, my Government’s view, that continuing this support was necessary.

So I was glad to receive confirmation of the Dutch decision after my return.

Our advice is that the planned arrangements for support following the full Dutch drawdown will see equivalent support to Australian forces.

While lighter in absolute numbers, the American support available to our forces is agile and highly effective in pursuing our common mission. In addition, Afghan forces in Uruzgan have increased from around 3 000 to 4 000 in the past eighteen months, meaning total troop numbers are larger now than when Dutch forces were present.

As Prime Minister, I am satisfied that our troops have the right support.

And of course, this is a matter we keep under constant review.

In Uruzgan, Australia’s substantial military, civilian and development assistance focuses on:

• Training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade to assume responsibility for the province’s security.
• Building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions.
• Helping improve the Afghan Government’s capacity to deliver core services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people.

As well as our efforts supporting transition in Uruzgan, Australia’s special forces are targeting the insurgent network in and around the province, disrupting insurgent operations and supply routes.

While not part of Combined Team-Uruzgan, the Special Operations Task Group contributes to the province’s security.

Our Special Air Service Regiment and our Commando Regiments are the equal of any special forces in the world.

They will make a difference to the outcome of the war.

I know all this is very dangerous work for our soldiers and civilians.

I give you my firm assurance that this government will listen to the professional advice and provide every necessary protection and support for our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan.

Over the past twelve months the Government has announced more than $1.1 billion for additional force protection measures for Australian personnel.

This includes upgraded body armour and rocket, artillery and mortar protection.

The continuing and evolving threat posed to our troops by improvised explosive devices has seen us pursuing the right technologies to ensure our troops can detect these devices.

Our troops are protected through hardened vehicles and other protective equipment.

And of course we will keep these force protection measures under constant review.

I have spoken to Air Chief Marshal Houston, the Chief of the Defence Force.

I have spoken to Major General Cantwell, our national commander on the ground.

Their advice to the Government is this.

As we stand today, our force structure – the number of troops on the ground and the capabilities they have – is right for our mission in Afghanistan.

As Prime Minister, I want to be very clear.

The Government receives the advice on this decision.

But we take the responsibility for this decision.

There has also been some debate about the rules of engagement for our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Of course I will not comment on the particular case which is subject to current proceedings.

I do however want to respond to some of the public comments on the rules of engagement generally.

Those rules of engagement are properly decided by the Government.

They are consistent with the guidance provided by General Petraeus.

They are consistent with the International Security Assistance Force’s rules of engagement.

They are consistent with the international law of armed conflict.

As with troop levels, we take the advice, but we take the responsibility.

As Prime Minister, let me say: I believe the rules of engagement are robust and sufficient for the mission in Uruzgan.

The Australian Defence Force is a professional military force, respected in Australia and around the world.

They operate under strict rules of engagement. That is what they do.

Rules of engagement are central to the mission of the ADF.

Strict rules of engagement are in the long-term interests of our troops in the field.

But more than that: they are the difference between us and our enemy.

As much as anything, what marks us from them is precisely this.

We respect innocent civilian life.

I believe Australians would not have it any other way.

4. What Progress is Being Made Nationally

The new international strategy is in place.

The elements of the surge to support the strategy are now reaching full-strength.

The hard work is underway. We will monitor events closely.

The NATO Lisbon summit in November will assess further progress against the International Security Assistance Force’s strategy.

Mapping out the strategy will be a key focus of the summit.

Afghanistan is a war-ravaged country that faces immense development challenges.

While the challenges are huge, I can report tentative signs of progress to date.

The Afghan National Security Forces are being mentored and trained.

The Afghan National Army reached its October 2010 growth objective of 134,000 ahead of schedule, and the Afghan National Police is also ahead of its October 2010 goal of 109,000.

The Afghan National Army is becoming increasingly capable and supporting coalition operations more effectively. Nearly 85% of the Army is now fully partnered with ISAF forces for operations in the field. Afghan forces are now in the lead in Kabul.

The ability of the Afghan government to provide services to its people is being built.

In primary education. Enrolments have increased from 1 million in 2001 to approximately 6 million today. Some 2 million of these enrolments are girls. There were none in 2001.

Nothing better symbolises the fall of the Taliban than these two million Afghan girls learning to read.

In basic health services. Infant mortality decreased by 22 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and immunisation rates for children are now in the 70 to 90 per cent range.

In vital economic infrastructure. Almost 10,000 kilometres of road has been rehabilitated and 10 million Afghans now have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20 000 in 2001.

With the increase in troop levels, the fight is being taken to the insurgency.

Insurgents are being challenged in areas, particularly in the south and east of the country, where they previously operated with near-impunity.

Indeed, much of the increase in violence this year is attributable to the fact that there is a larger international and Afghan presence pursuing the insurgency more aggressively.

In Afghan politics, efforts are being made to convince elements amongst the insurgents to put down their arms.

To renounce violence and adopt a path back to constructive and purposeful civilian life.

And although we know democracy remains rudimentary and fragile, Afghanistan has a free press and a functioning parliament.

Last month parliamentary elections took place – elections with real and widely publicised problems – but elections did take place.

And the international community is working closely with Pakistan.

Stability in Pakistan, and the uprooting of extremist networks that have established themselves in the border regions and terrorise both countries, is essential to stability in Afghanistan.

Mr Speaker.

Let me turn more specifically to the progress of Australia’s mission in Uruzgan.

Our Mentoring Task Force is training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army.

The 4th Brigade, as our commanders on the ground told me during my visit, is proving to be an increasingly professional force, fighting better and becoming more capable at conducting complex operations.

The Brigade’s recent efforts in successfully completing a series of resupply missions between Tarin Kot and Kandahar has demonstrated improving capability. Since late last year, they have moved from observing and participating, to planning and leading these activities.

The Brigade also recently provided security for parliamentary elections in the province.

Our civilians are also making a difference in Uruzgan.

Our AFP contingent has trained almost seven hundred Afghan National Police at the police training centre for the province.

It has also contributed to the successful targeting of corrupt officials and the tackling of major crimes.

We are helping build local services.

In Tarin Kot township, business is flourishing at the local bazaar. There are two bank branches, crime is down, and the town is becoming a genuine provincial trading hub.

I visited our Trade Training School on the Tarin Kot base, which is turning out 60 graduates each quarter in basic trades such as plumbing and carpentry, most of whom then contribute to reconstruction and development in the province.

Our aid to Uruzgan is increasing to $20 million in 2010-11.

Already we have supported 78 school reconstruction projects and the disbursal of over 950 micro-finance loans.

We have helped refurbish the Tarin Kot hospital and assisted the rehabilitation and operation of 11 health centres and 165 health posts.

We are constructing a new building for the Department of Energy and Water, and building a bridge crossing to connect to the Tarin Kot-Chora Road.

Our civilians are working to build capacity within the provincial administration and support the reach of central government programs into Uruzgan.

We are taking the fight to the insurgency.

On the C-130 flight into Afghanistan, a map of Uruzgan spread out on his knees, our national commander Major General John Cantwell briefed me on our work in the field.

Valley by valley ... we are gradually making a difference to security.

He told me about agriculture-rich Mirabad Valley, a strategically important region with a history of violence in recent years, just to the east of the provincial capital Tarin Kot.

Mirabad was dominated by the Taliban for the last seven years. It was a place where the Provincial Government had no influence.

But over the last two years the Afghan security forces, in partnership with Australian, Dutch and now US forces, have methodically expanded their permanent presence into the Valley with the establishment of three Patrol Bases.

Insurgents, clearly threatened by the growing reach of the Afghan National Army, attacked the bases unsuccessfully a number of times during construction.

Now the bases, combined with two nearby outposts, will allow the Afghan National Army to better protect Mirabad’s communities.

Mirabad is far from a success story yet.

Progress in development, education and democracy is yet to begin.

But in the specific mission we have given our forces in Uruzgan – to train the Afghan National Army to take the lead in security – we see progress being made.

That is the beginning of transition.

General Cantwell also told me about Gizab.

It is an isolated township in the far north of Urzugan Province that had long been a Taliban safe haven, and one which the Taliban used as a base to launch attacks against the Chora district.

Earlier this year, in April, the local community rose in revolt against the Taliban and, with the assistance of Afghan and Australian forces, captured the local Taliban commander and expelled the insurgents.

Gizab now has a local police force and a new district governor, and the provincial government is beginning to make its presence felt.

Again, a place where progress is painstaking and incremental, where there will be new setbacks and where consolidation is needed.

Again though, a place where the seeds of transition are being sewn.

I have shared some positive stories about the beginnings of transition.

There are many stories which are not so positive.

We should be very realistic about the situation.

Progress, even in security, is highly variable across the province.

Any gains come off a very low base.

Any advances made are fragile.

The challenges that face Uruzgan, and Afghanistan, are immense.

But I do believe we should be cautiously encouraged.

5. The future of our commitment to Afghanistan

Australia’s national interests in Afghanistan are clear.

There must be no safe haven for terrorists.

We must stand firmly by our ally, the United States.

There is a new international strategy in place – focussed on counter-insurgency, designed to enable transition.

Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended.

We, along with the rest of our partners in the International Security Assistance Force, want to bring our people home as soon as possible.

And the Afghan people want to stand on their own.

But achieving our mission is critical to achieving both these things.

The international community and the Afghan Government are agreed on a clear pathway forward.

The Kabul conference in July welcomed the Afghan Government’s determination that the Afghan National Security Forces should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014.

At the upcoming NATO/ISAF Summit in Lisbon the international community and the Afghan government will assess progress against the international strategy. Mapping out the strategy for transition to Afghan leadership and responsibility will be a key focus of the summit.

Transition will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be conditions-based.

It will happen faster in some places and slower in others. It will be a graduated process, not an event or a date.

There is no “transition day”.

International forces will be thinned out as Afghan forces step up and assume responsibility. In some places the transition process will be subject to setbacks.

We need to be prepared for this.

My firm view is that for transition to occur in an area, the ability of Afghan forces to take the lead in security in that area must be irreversible.

Our Government will state this as a simple fact in discussions before and at Lisbon.

We must not transition out, only to transition back in.

In Conclusion

Australia will do everything in our power to ensure

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to argue the case very strongly that Australia should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as quickly and as safely as possible. Like everyone in this country, I watched the television coverage of the funeral of Lance Corporal MacKinney, who died in Afghanistan on active duty and was buried on 12 September 2010. He was the father of Annabell, and his son Noah was born on the day of his funeral. Noah will never see his father and he will grow up knowing that his father was the 21st Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan. Whilst I, like the rest of the nation, grieved for his death, Noah, his sister Annabell and the family will pay the price of the war in Afghanistan for the rest of their lives.

So you really have to ask: why are we in Afghanistan and what is the reason that we are paying the price of the deaths of young Australians in Afghanistan? There is no greater responsibility than committing the country’s forces to war. This should have been debated in this parliament long ago, and I am glad that we are now at the point of being able to have this debate in the Australian parliament, but each and every one of us has to answer that question: why are we in Afghanistan and why are we risking the lives of Australian forces in that war in Afghanistan? The answer has to consist of more than statements based on actions taken by then President Bush, then Prime Minister Blair and former Prime Minister Howard. They botched Afghanistan, and if we were being honest we would all admit that. President Bush, with Australia and the UK in tow, pulled out of and abandoned Afghanistan to go on flawed intelligence into Iraq and then went back into Afghanistan. The reason for going into Afghanistan was to deal with terrorism—to deal with al-Qaeda. But we all know that al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and that when we talk about al-Qaeda we are talking about Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and other places around the planet.

At what point did anyone go to the Australian people and say, ‘The original reason we went into Afghanistan is no longer the reason we went into Afghanistan’? Nobody went and consulted with the Australian people about the fact that terrorism is now in several other countries and that these terrorist cells are in different places and even better organised than they were in Afghanistan. No; instead we kept on with the war. I would argue that the reason we did that was that we did not know how to withdraw. There was no exit strategy for Afghanistan, and there still is not. Prior to this election, the government said that there would be a two-to-four-year time frame in which we would withdraw. Subsequent to that, the Prime Minister has said that it could be 10 years before we leave Afghanistan. But there is still no coherent argument to the Australian people as to why we are there. I ask: how is Afghanistan going to be any different in two to four years to the way it is now? What is it going to look like as a result of our efforts in Oruzgan province? How is it going to be different in two to four years time? I would argue that it is not going to be any different.

I also ask the question: why are we propping up a corrupt government in Afghanistan, one that will not endear us to the Afghani people? We say that we are there to help the Afghan people, but we are actually protecting and propping up one of the most corrupt regimes on earth. The Karzai government has been accused of state organised drug running, bank fraud and endemic bribery. Transparency International has said that the only country with a more venal government than Afghanistan’s is Somalia. Ordinary Afghanis have to be persuaded to shun the Taliban and support the pro-Western Karzai government in Kabul. But why would they? Why would ordinary Afghanis want to support a corrupt government propped up by an invasion force? They clearly do not and will not. As for the details of that level of corruption, in a recent article in the Australian press John Kerin wrote:

Take the Kabul Bank debacle: according to reports in The New York Times, Karzai’s brother, Mahmoud, is a major shareholder in the bank, which teetered on the brink of collapse until the Afghan Central Bank stepped in.

Bank executives such as Mahmoud Karzai had allegedly been lending themselves millions of dollars to buy villas in Dubai. There were allegations that as much as $300 million was missing.

Thousands of depositors tried to withdraw their funds until armed government goons put a halt to the bank run.

In Afghanistan, corruption and the military campaign are intimately linked. The fate of the Kabul Bank has a direct impact on the war because the Afghan police and the army, along with the civil servants, are paid by the bank.

Hamid Karzai appears to be positioning himself for the eventual withdrawal of coalition forces by stacking his government with extended family to maintain control.

At least six Karzai relatives have influential positions in the administration.

The article went on:

Karzai has undermined a series of tribunals set up under coalition tutelage to stamp out corruption.

An election in late September was riddled with fraud in up to one-third of Afghan provinces. Both Hamid Karzai and his brother Ahmed Wali were accused of trying to fix the result.

The Taliban and other insurgent groups made good on their promise to disrupt the elections by mounting rocket attacks and intimidating election workers.

The attacks led to the closure of  1000 of the 6000 polling stations.

The issue is: what are we doing supporting a totally corrupt Karzai government against the wishes of the Afghani people; why are we propping up this government; and why are we actually forcing the Afghani people to continue to support the Taliban against this corrupt Western supported government in Kabul?

The final point I want to make this evening is: the Australian government should be committing our forces in the best long-term interests of this nation, and there is still not a clear explanation from the Australian government as to what we hope to achieve in terms of this nation’s strategic interests by remaining and supporting a corrupt government in Afghanistan against the wishes of the Afghani people. We should be supporting the Afghani people through our aid dollars and the support of those programs run by the United Nations, but it is inappropriate for us to continue supporting the war in Afghanistan which everybody agrees is unwinnable.

Now we have the Obama administration in discussions with the more moderate groups in the Taliban trying to work out a withdrawal strategy in that country. It is time that Australia brought our troops home. It is time that the Australian government said to the Australian people that this is an unwinnable war and that there is no clear objective any longer in being in Afghanistan because terrorism has moved elsewhere.

We need to support the Afghani people but we need to support our own troops as well. They need a clear rationale as to why they are there or when they are coming home. I do not believe it is appropriate to keep on saying how much we support our troops in Afghanistan without giving them a clear reason as to why they are serving in that country in an unwinnable war, knowing that there has to be an exit strategy but the government cannot make up its mind what that exit strategy is and what time frame it will be carried out over.

We want our troops brought home now and we want them brought home safely. We want to support the Afghani people and we want to say to our troops who have served in Afghanistan how much we appreciate the sacrifice. We want to say to our troops in Afghanistan how grateful we are as a nation for the service that they have offered us. But we also want to say to them that we respect them and their families enough to recognise that staying longer in Afghanistan is not going to result in a significant change for the Afghani people because of the level of the corruption in Kabul with the Karzai government, and it is time they came home. The Australian Greens will keep arguing in this place and in the community that our Australian troops be brought home to their loved ones before we lose any more young Australians as casualties in that war.

I will end as I began in talking about Annabell and Noah Mackinney: they will grow up being proud of their father’s service and rightly so, but we owe it to them to say here and now that Australia has lost its way in Afghanistan. By staying we will not significantly alter that country now or in two or four years time. In Oruzgan province, yes, we are working with the security forces but when we leave they will come under the command of a corrupt government. It is time for our troops to come home and it is time, when they do come home, that we give them the support they will need after the experience they have been through in this war in Afghanistan.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to provide my contribution to this national debate in this parliament on the war in Afghanistan. Speakers before me in this debate in both the House and here in the Senate have comprehensively convinced and outlined the rationale for Australia’s ongoing presence in that country. Our military contribution comprises around 1,500 Australian Defence Force personnel who are deployed in Afghanistan with the majority, over 1,200 of those, being based in Oruzgan province.

Our substantial military, civilian and development assistance focuses on training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade in Oruzgan province to assume responsibility for the province’s security. We are building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions in Oruzgan and helping to improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver core services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people, and of course operations to disrupt insurgents’ operations and supply routes utilising the Special Operations Task Force. In Afghanistan we work in partnership with the United States, New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia as the International Security Assistance Force combined team in Oruzgan, which commenced on 1 August this year.

Tonight I want to put a very personal face on the statistics and the facts of our involvement in Afghanistan. The majority of our personnel currently in Afghanistan derived from 1st Brigade at Robertson Barracks, in my home town of Darwin. I am very proud this evening to provide this contribution in front of Lieutenant William Cumming, from the Royal Australian Navy, who is here with me this week in Parliament House on his parliamentary defence program.

One of the major elements of the Combined Team Oruzgan is the second mentoring task force. The mission of the MRTF-2 is to provide operational mentor and liaison teams. These teams live with and train, mentor and support their Afghan National Army 4th Brigade colleagues. There are more than 750 Australian Army personnel from 5RAR 1st Brigade at Robertson Barracks involved in MRTF-2, which is based around an infantry battle group from the 5th Battalion—as I said, RAR, the Royal Australian Regiment.

I just want to take a moment to pay tribute to those men and women, and I hope that if they get to read my contribution online, whether they are in Afghanistan or still back at Robertson Barracks, I can say hello, and a fond hello, to some of the many personnel I would have met in March 2009 while I was in East Timor as part of Operation Astute, as part of the parliamentary defence program. I understand, from my meeting with Brigadier Gus McLachlan last Friday, that most of the people I would have met in East Timor in March 2009 as part of 5RAR have now been deployed to Afghanistan. So I have a very personal knowledge of the kind of personnel who are working in Afghanistan on behalf of this country—certainly under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Darren Huxley.

The people I met in East Timor were people who were professional soldiers, who were trained to be exquisite in their knowledge of the field in what they do, who were capable experts and who would do this country extremely proud no matter what country they were deployed to or in what circumstances. These people have come back from East Timor and have spent months training in all sorts of situations, in all kinds of routines, in all kinds of drills, learning the language and learning the culture so that they can contribute in a professional way to what is happening in Afghanistan. That is what they want to do, that is what they live to do, that is the chosen career they have voluntarily opted for as being part of the Army, and from what I saw in East Timor, they do it exceptionally well.

5RAR is a regiment of 1 Brigade; it is the home of the Australian Army’s 1 Brigade in Darwin at Robertson Barracks—or ‘Robo’ Barracks as we locals call it. It is in the electorate of Solomon. The Darwin-based troops are involved in other critical elements of the Combined Team Oruzgan. There are provincial reconstruction teams which provide a trade training school, work section and security element, which contribute to the enhancement of security of other government agencies working in Oruzgan. Seventy Australian Army personnel from 1 Brigade are deployed in the provincial reconstruction team. The brigade also provides 15 personnel to the force engineer construction team, whose role is to provide force level engineer support to deployed ADF elements operating in the Oruzgan province. Eighty personnel from 1 Brigade are involved in the Force Communications Unit of the Combined Team Oruzgan and a further 21 from 1 Brigade personnel are involved in the artillery training scheme at Kabul, which provides training, mentoring and training activity development to the Afghan National Army artillery branch and school of artillery, and 1 Brigade also provides approximately 20 personnel at the Combined Team Oruzgan headquarters. The CTU headquarters is a brigade-sized tactical command post headquarters tasked with command and control of multinational elements operating in the Oruzgan province.

CTU has the ability to use a wide variety of military capabilities to prevent regression of the current security situation in Oruzgan, and to support the development of the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade. Capabilities include fire support engineers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, psychological operations, information operations, electronic warfare, signal support, administration and logistical support. CTU is currently commanded by Colonel Jim Creighton of the United States Army, and his deputy commander is Australian Army Colonel Dennis Malone

What I want to do tonight is paint a picture of the contribution that our people at Robertson Barracks have provided: 985 defence personnel from Robo Barracks are currently in Afghanistan, and as I understand it 750 of those are from 5RAR. Clearly 1 Brigade, the Darwin-based brigade, has a central role in Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. But what I also want to do is place on record tonight the very special relationship that the Darwin community has with the ADF. The Army, Navy and Air Force all have bases in Darwin, and the military there are well integrated into the local community and well respected and appreciated.

I want to take time in my contribution to also pay my gratitude and my thanks to the 450 families in Darwin who are the wives and the spouses, the sisters, dads and brothers even, relatives and friends of those people who are deployed in Afghanistan. A lot of effort goes into supporting those families as they cope for eight months while the person they cherish dearly is deployed to Afghanistan. But that is part of the role, that is part of the team, that is part of the commitment, and I think in this debate we have to remember that our people in Afghanistan want to be there because that is their career. That is what they have trained to do, that is what they choose to do in their life—that is, to represent this country and to fight for democracy and freedom. And not only should we support them; we should be there with them ensuring that they do the best job they can do because we equip them well, we support them well, but we also support the families they have left behind.

The deep personal commitment of Army personnel at all levels to being in Afghanistan is obvious. From my own discussions and meetings, everyone who goes to Afghanistan sees it as the culmination of the reasons they joined the Army in the first place: the useful application of their skills and training. As Brigadier McLachlan reminded me last week, joining the Army in this country is voluntary; people choose to enlist with the full knowledge of potential involvement in conflicts such as Afghanistan. And we have seen from the description of the teams and areas to which 1 Brigade troops are deployed, a large focus of the Army’s presence is about training, mentoring, protecting and developing the local capacity.

There is no doubt that the majority of us taking part in this debate have no empirical sense of the country and the people we are talking about. Afghanistan is largely a media construct for most of us, known only through news accounts of war and terrorism. I would warrant that most of us envisage dusty, barren deserts and harsh, inaccessible mountains. Most of us would have no sense at all of the history or the culture of Afghanistan, but our troops do. The vast majority of us will have no opportunity to visit Afghanistan, but a sense of the social history and daily life of Afghans can be gleaned from reading. Khaled Hosseini’s book A Thousand Splendid Suns is set in Afghanistan, largely in Kabul. Though a novel, it conveys in a very real way what life was like for Afghans and the way it changed under the Taliban. It gives one a sense of normal lives in Kabul, both before and during the harsh reign of the Taliban. Kabul was not the rocket ravaged ruin that we see on our screens. Hosseini describes Kabul as follows:

One could not count the moons that shimmer on her roofs, or the thousand splendid suns that hide behind her walls.

This was a good place. It is the pre-Taliban Afghanistan that we are seeking to restore—while, I might add, relying on our so very professional and well-trained troops to do so.

The Taliban took control of Afghanistan on 27 September 1996. Initially seen as heroes and freedom fighters who managed to overthrow the Soviet regime, their own regime quite rapidly became repressive and abusive, particularly of women. Women in Afghanistan had received the right to vote in the 1920s and were making a strong push for equality by the 1960s. Women made up 15 per cent of the Afghan legislature. In the 1990s, 70 per cent of school teachers, 50 per cent of government workers and university students and 40 per cent of doctors in Kabul were women. This is not the Afghanistan with which we were confronted nine years ago. As we know, the Taliban banished women from the workforce, forbade them an education and, indeed, did not allow them to be out alone on the streets and would beat them for not wearing the full burqa. Free speech was suppressed.

Our presence in Afghanistan is not only about protecting Australians from terrorism. We are doing something fundamentally important in Afghanistan: we are getting the country back to being a place where women and children are protected and where equal rights are restored. We have an ongoing commitment to that social rebuilding. There are already positive signs. As many of my colleagues in the lower house have said during their contributions to the debate in that place, we are creating a situation where the ordinary Afghan citizen can be confident that the International Security Assistance Force and the Afghan National Security Forces are making headway. More than two million girls are now enrolled in schools. In the words of Khaled Hosseini: ‘A society has no chance of success if its women are uneducated.’

For me, this is the big reason why we are in Afghanistan and why we should stay. This goes to the core of what we are fighting for. We cannot and should not—and must not—walk away from that. It would be remiss, however, not to mention the huge sacrifices made by Australians in the pursuit of these operations. Twenty-one ADF members have been killed in action—one, of course, from the Northern Territory, whose home base was Katherine. It is the ultimate sacrifice, with each death devastating families and each death sadly felt in the ADF, alongside the community’s expression of sorrow and support. The father of Nathan Bewes, the 17th Australian soldier to be killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, said with humanity and dignity that his son had contributed to getting Afghanistan back to being a place where women and children are protected. This is a sentiment echoed by many who leave for Afghanistan and by many left behind on their departure. They are proud to be getting Afghanistan back to being a safe place, while making this world a safe place as well.

We have a responsibility to finish what we started in Afghanistan and to continue not only to be part of the alliance with the US, as sanctioned by the United Nations, but also to be part of a global alliance, grow that country and support its people. We have an equal responsibility to support those on the ground who are working for the security and development of Afghanistan, in the name of this country, Australia, and for our own national and personal security.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the motion to take note of the ministerial statement on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan. In many ways I feel poorly qualified to speak on the subject of our involvement in the war in Afghanistan. I have not been to Afghanistan. My only family connection with the Defence Force was a paternal grandfather who served in the Middle East in the First World War. But I live close to the Enoggera Army barracks and have been very involved in supporting that group. I have family friends who have sons and fathers in Afghanistan or who have served there at least once if not more since we became involved in the conflict.

I have recently, in the past two years, become involved with a very, very worthwhile group called the Military Brotherhood, a motorcycle club based in South-East Queensland, that supports former soldiers, police and UN peacekeepers who have been psychologically damaged or hurt in some way by the wars in which they have been involved. It was my honour to speak yesterday, on United Nations Day, at a function which the Military Brotherhood hosted at Canungra, near the Army base there. The Military Brotherhood asked me to speak on the subject of dedication, and I was delighted to do so. What came out of their thinking and my thinking on the topic of dedication was the need for sacrifice when you are being dedicated. I can think of no better reason to claim a right to speak tonight than to represent those people and, in the words of David Burchell, from the Australian, to say:

It would be hard to imagine a simpler or more self-evidently good cause than Afghanistan.

Yesterday during the service in Canungra, former sergeant Joseph Kocka spoke about his service. He is a Vietnam and Iraq veteran. He was 19 years old when he went to Vietnam. He was older, wiser and, he says, ‘believed more in humanity’ when he went to Cyprus in 1997. I would like to quote a little from his speech. He talked about how far we as a global family have progressed in the period that he was speaking about. He said:

The two operations I mentioned began around the same time, in the early 1960s. In South Vietnam we were there to assist in establishing a government which would then look after its people. In Cyprus we were there to help all the people, and in so doing bring them good government.

                  …              …              …

Our efforts in South Vietnam came to nought in 1975 and it was all over. At that same time in Cyprus an invasion occurred by one of the external forces and the UN stepped into the breach. It resulted in a lasting but fragile peace which continues to this day.

                  …              …              …

What is particularly significant between the two operations is that one finished and the other is ongoing.

He made the point and the contrast that, unlike the Vietnam war, the Cyprus conflict had been managed by the United Nations, by a group with international approval to undertake the work that they were undertaking.

Such is the case, of course, in Afghanistan. We have already heard quite a bit about the International Security Assistance Force, the NATO-led force, which was yet again endorsed for its work in Afghanistan by the United Nations Security Council on 13 October this year. So there we have a group of allies, an alliance. Earlier today, Senator Abetz mentioned that, out of that group, there are a number of countries that have supported and are signatories to the ISAF but are currently not contributing. I thought it was interesting to look at the 47 countries that currently have troops—these figures are from August this year—in Afghanistan. There are, in fact, 16 countries that have more than 500 troops deployed there. I would like to read out that list, because I think we too often simply talk about Australia, the UK and the USA—and all of Australia has talked about the Netherlands and their past involvement with us. The countries that have more than 500 troops in Afghanistan as at 6 August this year were Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other contributions go from three up to 400 or more people. This is not an alliance of the US lackeys, as some people would have you believe; this is a genuine alliance of NATO countries which is supported properly and firmly by the United Nations.

In my view, we must continue until we perceive that we have developed some success in this area. Senator Abetz talked earlier about the fact that we must continue with our nation-building efforts in Afghanistan as well as our troop efforts—it is not just about the fight; it is about rebuilding the country of Afghanistan—and the fact that we have developed 11 health centres and that well over 150 health posts have been refurbished with the involvement of Australia and Australian troops. Senator Abetz also mentioned the fact that we need to be thinking about mentoring staff to assist in building the social capital and the resources for Afghanistan to run its own democracy, to run its own, fair, free society. I certainly hope that our government will support that when the meeting in Portugal happens next year. I note that Michelle Grattan, in the Age this month, commented on Prime Minister Gillard sounding muddled and uncertain when pressed for details about the likely form of any sort of long-term commitment in Afghanistan, and I quote:

More tellingly, she floundered when dealing with questions about the negotiations under way between the Karzai government and Taliban figures. This appeared to be a sign of her inexperience and probably her political caution in the area.

We need experience and we need to proceed with caution but with honour in this area, and it would be good if, at the Portugal meeting, this government would encourage the countries that currently do not provide human resources into Afghanistan to offer mentoring staff to assist organisations and companies so that they can take on the roles that have been left vacant in this current situation and because of the Taliban regime.

Twenty-one Australian personnel have died in Afghanistan. The community, their families, their friends and their ADF colleagues have all mourned those 21 people. It has been said that we must stay there to honour their memories. It would seem to me that, yes, we must stay there to finish the job that we have started. That is the best way, in my view, to honour their memories. There is no point in staying there if we do not think that what we currently have is an honourable fight to have. I think it is. I hope that this parliament agrees.

One of the things we need to keep in mind is how different this war is from some others. It is what is now referred to as ‘irregular warfare’ within the ADF. The majority of our troops were killed or injured by bombs and booby traps—by IEDs—and not by being shot at during battle. This is what is referred to as a ‘dirty war’. It is, however, an honourable cause, and we must continue to support our troops. I know we currently have troops who are on their third tour of duty of Afghanistan. We must be very careful that we do not exhaust our fighting people in that way. We must ensure that we give them the resources that they need; we must ensure that we have a large enough army to sustain the type of involvement that we currently have. We must keep in mind too, I think, some of the cultural issues. I am told that Afghani forces often go, I guess, AWOL. It is not a case of desertion; it is because of tribal necessities and loyalties that they leave to attend functions in their home places and then come back later. We need to think about how this is going to be the sort of army that can work in a country.

The Taliban move freely throughout Afghanistan and throughout Pakistan, and we need to reach the situation where we have the total and ongoing support of the Afghani population. Numerous anecdotes have been told about the Afghani population supporting our troops to oust the Taliban and other terrorist organisations in their areas. We need to consider this issue very closely as we move from the troop and battle situation to the support and social development side of the war in Afghanistan.

I would like to conclude by talking a little about some of the other problems that we need to keep in mind as we make this transition. Senator Abetz earlier today pointed out that more than two million women and girls are now back in school who would not have been there—who possibly would have been killed for being there—under the Taliban . But, at the same time we need to remember that this democracy is rudimentary and fragile. The United Nations released a report on women and peace on 21 October. The point was made during the launch of the report:

Women still face obstacles to engagement at all stages of the peace process.

Sexual violence remains an all-too-common tactic of war and often continues well after the guns fall silent.

       …         …         …

Advancing the cause of women, peace and security must be integral to our peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding efforts, not an afterthought.

I found fascinating a report by Muhammad Qayoumi in a newsletter produced by the Support Association for the Women of Afghanistan in Australia. Muhammad Qayoumi lived in Kabul in the fifties and sixties, before migrating to Australia. He challenges the view that Afghanistan has been ‘a broken 13th-century country’. He says:

... that is not the Afghanistan I remember. I grew up in trouble in the 1950s and ’60s. When I was in middle school, I remember that on one visit to a city market, I bought a photo book about the country published by Afghanistan’s planning ministry.

He includes photos from this book, another copy of which he has recently obtained. In it you see men and women working side by side. You see a male librarian serving two women, both of whom are wearing knee-length skirts and high heels. The photo could have been taken in any Australian library of the 1950s. Muhammad Qayoumi goes on to say:

A half-century ago, Afghan women pursued careers in medicine; men and women mingled casually at movie theatres and university campuses in Kabul; factories in the suburbs churned out textiles and other goods. There was a tradition of law and order, and a government capable of undertaking large national infrastructure projects, like building hydro power stations and roads, albeit with outside help. Ordinary people had a sense of hope, a belief that education could open opportunities for all, a conviction about a bright future lay ahead. All that has been destroyed by three decades of war, but it was real.

The Support Association for the Women of Afghanistan in Australia expresses some genuine fears that the Taliban are not the only people that the women of Afghanistan have reason to fear. They point out that some of the former warlords who now represent the government have the same misogynist attitudes as the Taliban had—for example, young girls trying to flee marriages to much older men have been brought back and flogged and, in one case, killed. This is not a regime that we want to support. This is not a regime that is honourable or a regime that we can fight for. So part of the solution to Afghanistan must be to ensure that the new government—the new regime and the new view of Afghanistan—includes fairness, democracy and equal opportunity. As David Burchell said:

There is scarcely another country on earth where human dignity has been so deliberately and disgracefully trampled upon, or where the progress of one-half of humankind, probably the most signal advance of the past two centuries, has been more casually routed.

We must ensure, as we have done up to now, that we behave honourably, that the solution is honourable and that it is fair to all Afghanis, men and women.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take part in a debate that should have happened 10 years ago—or nine years ago as we are in our 10th year of this conflict. It is good to see that the parliament is finally debating the merits of our military involvement in Afghanistan. While I welcome this opportunity and I am glad it has finally come, this highlights a problem in Australia in that, as I said, we are now in our 10th year of conflict and this is the first year time the parliament has discussed it in terms of debating it. I acknowledge there have been ministerial statements made but this is the first time we have had a debate. I personally do not believe that is the way our country should be committed to war. Decisions are made that affect everybody involved in that conflict. It affects people in fact for generations to come—not just decades but generations. You can feel the impact that conflict and war has had, and will have, on the soldiers, on their families and on the people in the country.

We are talking about a country where they have already been involved in conflict for decades. Our Prime Minister said in the debate in the other place on this last week that we will be there for another 10 years. That is a further decade of conflict for those people in Afghanistan. It is, I acknowledge, a very complex decision; but because of that it absolutely has to be examined very carefully so people fully understand the implications of going into that conflict, going into that place far from our shores, and the impact that it has on the soldiers who we send.

David Petraeus said we have to:

“… recognise also that I don’t think you win this war … “I think you keep fighting. … You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”

Were Australians, when our previous government took us into this conflict, aware that that was the decision that their government was making for them and their children? No, they were not. Were they aware that their government was committing this country’s forces for two decades? Were they aware of the issues involved? No, they were not. And those issues have changed.

I join the Greens wholeheartedly in our opposition to this war and support for bringing the troops home. I believe that the conflict there continues to intensify, that it will inevitably result in the death of more troops and more civilians, that it will not protect us from terrorism and that it will not result in a stable, peaceful and just democracy in Afghanistan. Already we have seen the deaths of 21 Australian soldiers—10 of them since June this year. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to their partners, parents, children and families. They absolutely will be suffering from their loss and will do so, as I said, into the future. There have been over 2,100 international military fatalities, and this figure does not capture the full extent of the combatants’ deaths as it overlooks, for example, private security contractors—whose deaths, it is reported, surpassed the deaths of soldiers in the first half of this year. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, in the first six months of 2010 the total civilian casualties increased by 31 per cent compared to 2009. It is reported that the total number of civilian casualties between 2007 and 2010 is estimated to be around 7,000—although I must say I have heard some commentators put that figure much higher than that.

Each year the number of combatant and civilian casualties rises. According to recent work by the International Council on Security and Development, 80 per cent of Afghanistan now experiences heavy Taliban and insurgent activity, 17 per cent experiences substantial activity and only three per cent of the country is now classified as having light Taliban or insurgent activity. This has grown worse with every passing year of the conflict. Each year popular support for international forces and the central government declines.

As has been reported widely, recent elections in Afghanistan have been marred by fraud, undermining the legitimacy of the government in Afghanistan we are currently supporting. Why do we persevere? We have heard many speeches making the case for supporting that Afghan government in this place today. The three reasons often given for our continued engagement are: firstly, counter-terrorism, the primary reason; secondly, to stabilise Afghanistan, which is linked to more humanitarian efforts such as constructing schools and the like, and I would argue that there is a strong need to in fact disassociate our development approach from the military conflict; and, finally, our alliance with the US.

No-one can dispute that we wish to protect ourselves from terrorist attack, and we condemn terrorism at every level and everywhere. We can also accept that al-Qaeda was operating in training camps in Afghanistan when the Taliban was in power and that some recent terrorist activities have involved criminals with links in Afghanistan. But these are not the important questions. The real question we need to ask is this: will our ongoing military engagement in Afghanistan make us safer from terrorist attack? I have got to say that, looking at the evidence—and I have looked at it carefully—my answer to that is no. For a start, al-Qaeda is not there anymore; it no longer has a significant presence in Afghanistan.

In an interview earlier this year, CIA Director Leon Panetta said:

I think the estimate of the number of al-Qaeda is actually relatively small. At most, we are looking at 50 to 100—maybe less. It is in that vicinity. There is no question that the main location of al-Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

I do not think anybody would disagree with that assessment. In 2007 Professor Hugh White, from the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute for International Policy, asked:

How can Afghanistan be central to the war on terror when the locus of jihadism has simply moved, mostly to Pakistan.

Paul Pillar, from the CIA’s counter-terrorism centre, said:

The terror threat to the West would not significantly increase if we were to leave Afghanistan.

And he has called for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. I believe we have got to the point where counter-terrorism and the threat to Australia if we were not in Afghanistan is a straw man of an argument. There is no reason to assume that Afghanistan would become a safe haven for terrorists if the international forces withdrew and the Taliban were able to govern Afghanistan once more, and there is no justification for thinking it would automatically mean that al-Qaeda would be returned and operate with impunity from Afghanistan. Senator Brown went through the arguments around that this morning. And even if it were likely that Afghanistan under the Taliban would offer terrorists a safe haven, our continued military efforts do not seem likely to stop the Taliban returning to power. President Karzai has been attempting to get negotiations with the Taliban underway for a number of years—and we know those talks have started. These talks have the potential to see the Taliban become part of the leadership of Afghanistan once more—even while our soldiers are actually there fighting to prevent that very outcome. I think there is some very confused thinking going on there as well in terms of another reason why we should be in Afghanistan.

I also believe there is no evidence that military operations in Afghanistan will reduce the risk of terrorism. With Afghan attitudes towards coalition forces becoming steadily more negative the longer we remain in Afghanistan, it is difficult to see how this can make us safer from terrorist attack operating from the country. Intuitively, the opposite seems more likely. The international military presence certainly has not reduced the incidence of terrorism attacks within Afghanistan. We know that from the impact it is having on people in Afghanistan. We know that 80 per cent of the attacks in Afghanistan are directed against international forces, suggesting the international presence in Afghanistan is increasing terrorism activity within that country, not reducing it.

As Senator Brown highlighted this morning, we do not have a policy of intervening militarily in every country that has problems with terrorism. Senator Brown outlined a number of areas where we have seen and continue to see terrorism attacks. We see, from the evidence, stronger bases for al-Qaeda in these particular countries. But I do not for one minute want it reported that we are advocating that we should be increasing our military presence in these areas—I am not. I am merely pointing out that you cannot use the potential presence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan—and it is acknowledged that they are no longer present in Afghanistan—or the presence of known terrorist activity to justify a presence in Afghanistan. As I said, we know there is an ongoing presence of terrorism activity in Yemen and Somalia and there is terrorism activity in the Philippines, and we know there have been some absolutely outrageous and horrific attacks in Congo—but that barely rates a mention. The conflicts and the outrageous, horrific attacks in Congo will mark those women and children absolutely for generations to come, yet we do not have a discussion about any action that we may need to take there.

Another argument that is put is about stabilising and rebuilding Afghanistan. We do fully understand the desperate need to rebuild the social infrastructure in Afghanistan; it absolutely needs stabilising and rebuilding. My proposition is that you do not do that with military force. There is a very, very strong argument to separate out our development aid and our military presence. In fact, non-government organisations argue very strongly that that should absolutely be the case—that having our aid linked to a military presence undermines the delivery of that aid.

I heard just last week of the impact. In fact, there was a talk here in parliament from an aid organisation about how it had taken a very long time to convince the various local militia, local insurgents, that their aid camp was a gun-free zone—that there were no guns. Slowly, the population in the camp felt protected and safe. Unfortunately, the American military presence did not respect the ban of guns in that military camp and went through on inspection with their guns terrifying the occupants and undermining the good faith that that organisation had built up with the people they were providing care and support for. They had been saying, ‘We will protect you; we have a no-gun policy here,’ but then the American military went through and completely ignored that. It set back that organisation very strongly.

There is also concern about attacks on NGOs because of a perceived association with the military. It is not the case that aid can be delivered to Afghanistan only when it is linked to and surrounded by international military forces. As I said, NGOs have been arguing the opposite. The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office recently reported that it does not believe the Taliban have a strategic intent to target NGOs. In areas under their control, Taliban insurgents sometimes even prohibit attacks on NGOs. Armed violence has escalated phenomenally—50 to 60 per cent higher than last year—but incidents involving NGOs have decreased. The United States Institute of Peace recently reported:

NGOs report that military activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and military involvement in the medical sector, have contributed to the shrinkage of humanitarian space. The military’s provision of health services through Provincial Reconstruction Teams and other mechanisms, though well-intended, sometimes sows confusion about the allegiances of US and other Western aid workers and creates tensions with humanitarian principles the agencies rely on to operate in conflict environments.

It found that NGOs working through local staff and operating with impartiality and community engagement were able to continue delivering primary healthcare services, despite prevailing insecurities.

Is it not time that we started taking those messages on board and looking at how we can really help the people of Afghanistan, to rethink how we deliver our aid and take a more collaborative and effective approach to security, based on building strong educational, technological and cultural links? A smart country would be exporting its knowledge and skills by training the next generation of Afghanistan’s political, business and civil society leaders and, along the way, helping them to know and understand us. It would take a different approach, not a military approach. It would take a much more engaging position with the development of social infrastructure and social structures, including an understanding of where we are coming from with our democratic principles, rather than trying to enforce those with a gun. That is how they see our involvement in their country now: military engagement first, with development of infrastructure and aid, unfortunately, coming a poor second.

I think there is plenty of evidence that shows this conflict is not resolving the terrible situation facing Afghanistan. It is not delivering the outcomes that we supposedly went into this conflict to try to resolve—not that I think that was very clear when our government took us in without the consent of its people and without its being debated in this parliament. Any future engagement of this country—my country—should be fully debated in this place. I extend absolutely my heartfelt sympathy for the grief of the families of those 21 soldiers. But I do not think that any more Australians should die in Afghanistan for the purposes outlined during this debate. Australia should be focusing its effort on delivering better outcomes through development aid, focusing that development aid carefully, separating it out from the military aid and focusing on how we build collaboration and cooperation with the Afghani people. Australia should be bringing its troops home and never again engaging in a conflict without it being debated in this place.

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

In this debate I will deal with three principal matters relating to Australia’s engagement in Afghanistan: firstly, the nature of modern warfare as context for our engagement; secondly, the issue of parliamentary approval for such engagements overseas; and, finally, the implications for the reform of the military justice system flowing from charges laid against three Australian soldiers.

As many speakers have observed, modern warfare as experienced in Afghanistan is dramatically different from the historical norm. In the past, warfare has been the result of territorial aggression by one societal group over another, including between states. Its motives have been territorial expansion, the subjugation of one people by another, wealth and, of course, new markets. Just as frequently, it has sought to impose one ideology and culture on another, including religious values and systems. In many cases, these motives were complementary, as empires of the world through the ages have evidenced.

Warfare has been most successfully employed by the developed nations of the west, including the ancient Greeks, Romans and Turks. It was their wealth, highly organised systems of governance, technology, and societal discipline which produced the necessary standing armies which brought success. In modern times, however, large-scale warfare has been primarily conducted by one state over another, individually or in alliances.

In this case there is no nation-state as the enemy. Since the inception of the United Nations and other multilateral groups such as NATO, war has also been waged to secure peace. Indeed, as the multilateral campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, the motives for involvement in war have widened considerably. They now include the removal of despotic leadership, the establishment of democratic systems of government, the elimination of risk of warfare to third parties and the world in general, and the suppression of terrorist sources.

Some also see collateral benefits in the removal of the opium trade, the promotion of humanitarian ideals and, more cynically, the preservation of access to resources and trade. Others feebly argue that it is a matter of honouring our alliance with the United States, but that trivialises their own professed rationale. As we have heard in this debate, this is a moving feast, not assisted by inadequate information and poorly articulated rationale. The subjective views expressed reflect this confusion of motives. Indeed, there has been a confusion of motives, I suggest, for all nations involved. There has been exactly the same debate everywhere, ranging from hard practicality through hopefulness to the idealistic.

Inevitably, however, there are only four possible outcomes: the so called ‘war’ will be won—that is, the enemy, the terrorists, will be defeated, never to return; the war will be lost, with an allied withdrawal and retreat a la Vietnam, and a new government installed; there will be a negotiated truce, perhaps with a new government; or the war will drag on interminably. At this stage, unfortunately, none of these four options is a betting proposition. These are circumstances of war which have never been experienced, and Korea, Malaya, East Timor, Iraq and the Solomons provide little value as guides.

Put simply, my position is that, having committed, Australia should persist on its current course. However, I do wish to sound a note of caution. Inevitably, battle fatigue will set in socially and politically, if it has not already. At this critical time, however, we should have one concern paramount, and that is the commitment of our troops now engaged. Those fighting under our colours deserve complete loyalty and the fullest possible support. They must know and understand their mission and it is imperative that this parliament and the people of Australia understand it clearly as well. They need to know they have our full support and that at the instant it ceases they will be brought home.

That is why this debate is important: war is a terrible thing; it must always be a last resort. The suppression of one force by another involves death and the fear of death. That is why we all abhor war and why decisions to go to war are the most serious a government can make—hence the debate about the power to make those decisions and the evidence justifying the decision once made.

Australia’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted this debate here in the parliament on a number of occasions already. I do not wish to cover the detail of the debate here this evening, but I will refer to the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee of February this year. All the issues were canvassed in great detail. Unfortunately for those who persist, the report has gone relatively unreported.

In essence the bill, which would have shifted the power to commit forces from the executive to the parliament, was rejected. One reason for rejection was the practicality of how to limit and define the purposes of overseas deployments requiring approval. However, the principal reason for rejection concerned the principles of the Westminster system and cabinet government, which have served us so well for over 150 years.

The Ludlam bill and its several antecedents appear motivated by one purpose: unchanging desire to restrict the power of executive government or a permanent desire to deny that the rationale for war might be legitimate in some circumstances. I say this because the manifest purpose of that bill has not changed in a generation, despite several inquires making numerous criticisms and identifying repeated shortcomings. However, overall the committee agreed that, for reasons of intelligence confidentiality, the need for flexibility and, in some cases, speed, the rationale for change was inadequate.

The parliament still has the power to vote for money for any such deployment. It also has the power to legislate for conscription if necessary, as we have seen during World War II and Vietnam. It also has the right to debate the matter regularly if it likes, as it is doing right now. Inevitably, public conclusions will be drawn and governments will be put on notice about their policy rationale and its acceptability—particularly its ongoing acceptability. I commend the committee report to those interested.

Finally, I want to address the policy controversy concerning the charges laid against three ADF personnel by the Director of Military Prosecutions, the DMP. The charges arise from action against the enemy in Afghanistan. As Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I am very dismayed at the level and content of the debate on this particular aspect of our commitment. In particular I refer to two articles that appeared in the Australian on 18 and 22 October, which are simply ignorant on fact and context.

In June 2005, under the chairmanship of Senator Evans—the current Leader of the Government in the Senate—the committee tabled a comprehensive report on military justice. That report was supported by now opposition senators Payne and Johnston. The committee recommended sweeping changes to the system of military justice. It addressed fully the application of military justice in Australia and overseas. It addressed the application of military justice in a domestic context and in theatre. Most critically, it did not address the alleged or actual commission of offences in combat or direct combat, or actual engagement with the enemy.

The Senate report did not just concern behavioural misdemeanours of bastardisation and, bullying; it also concerned the entire gamut of complaint handling and the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of military police investigations. Principally, it dealt in detail with the court martial system which had become a huge source of unfairness, bias and compromise. The committee’s far-reaching reforms were accepted in large part and are now in operation. The committee has continued its scrutiny of the matter by receiving from the Chief of the Defence Force four subsequent implementation reports and maintains today a close watching brief.

The military justice system has now been reformed almost from top to bottom. It has been fully and critically reviewed by Justice Street and appears to be working as successive governments intended. New processes for handling grievances are in place and the military police operation has been renovated. Importantly, the court martial system was thrown out in favour of a new Military Court. The principle behind this was simple, particularly given the huge weight of evidence against the fairness of the then court martial system. It did not, in many cases, deliver quality justice and was inferior to the standard of justice enjoyed by the general Australian population. In particular, the court and the entire process were to be independent of the military hierarchy and the chain of command. The position of DMP was created, as well as the Military Court system itself. As you are all aware, the constitutionality of the court has been challenged and the process has been suspended pending legislation for reinstatement.

Of course, the traditionalists have never liked the new system. They want to see a complete return to the old court martial system. In fact, the entire debate against the new system has been based on what is termed the ‘civilianisation’ of military justice. The committee’s view is that it simply gives military personnel a standard of justice equivalent to the civil system. For the recidivists, though, it is about tradition and the status of command and the uniqueness of military service and discipline. However, the committee did respect the need for the new independent DMP, summary trials processes and for the court system at large to have some empathy with the nature of military service.

The debate has now taken another leap: the suggestion has been made that private silks ought to be able to advise and represent the accused at their trial. In other words, reliance on lawyers of military background is inadequate—a suggestion that, I suspect, will be resisted by the military as a step too far. I remain wedded to the committee’s view—that is, that the appointment of judicial officers with military experience is important, if not critical. However, just as civilian lawyers are involved in many defence inquiries, I have no difficulty with private barristers being engaged.

This brings me to the case in point: the prosecution of three soldiers serving in Afghanistan for allegedly causing the death of a number of civilians in battle. It has nothing to do with the DMP whose independence must and should be respected and nothing to do with the evidence, about which we know very little. Putting aside all of the misinformation about the reforms to the military justice system and the constitutionality of the Military Court, there is a serious gap in the system.

We accept that military and civil criminal law run in parallel, and the military are not exempt from investigation and prosecution by civil authority, but there does seem to be a gap in the way in which offences in action are treated within the system. I do not mean behaviour in the theatre during the deployment; I mean in combat. This was not an issue that the committee addressed, and to my knowledge is an event relatively unknown in the jurisdiction. If it did occur within the court martial system and its known deficiencies, it just never saw the light of day. Certainly we know where public sentiment rests when people’s lives are put at risk and what is expected of them in the heat of life-threatening conflict. The independence of the DMP forbids any disclosure of evidence, the processes of obtaining that evidence and the detail provided from commanders. That’s only right; it is only proper.

With that in mind, I propose that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee revisit military justice with a view to examining and reporting on the adequacy of military justice provisions as they apply to live combat circumstances. Why is this necessary? Firstly, because a new situation has emerged without precedent in the history of the armed forces in Australia since Federation. My research indicates there is no precedent for such prosecution. Accordingly, the issue needs critical examination. Secondly, a brief examination of relevant statute, particularly sections 9 and 36 of the Defence Force Discipline Act, suggests the drafting does not comprehend an enemy of the nature we face currently in Afghanistan. By this I mean an enemy apparently motivated by religious zeal, not controlled or directed by a nation state, consequently engaged in insurgent activity, not that of a traditional military force, and whose purpose appears dynamic, flexible and fluid. I suggest that a DFDA whose antecedents lie in 18th and 19th century British army regulations may not be the appropriate vehicle for disciplinary regulation of troops engaged in 21st century conflict. I believe this inquiry is vitally important for the ongoing integrity of the system.

Arising out of the High Court decision in Laine and Morrison last year, the government will bring a range of amendments to the parliament, I am advised, early next year. Around that time, I believe it would be appropriate for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to conduct an inquiry into the matters I have raised today. Ideally, it would be best done by that committee because it would be handled by senators from all sides of the parliament who have had lengthy experience in all matters relating to military justice. That proposed inquiry is not about the interests of the civilian legal community and their access to well-paid work; it is about the interests of our armed forces engaged in combat overseas. It is about developing a modern legal system that comprehends modern warfare. This necessarily means having experienced legislators in this field conducting such an inquiry. I commend the motion to the Senate.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the war in Afghanistan and to say that I support what the Australian soldiers are doing there. It would be lovely to live in a perfect world, a world where we do not have wars, where we do not have attacks on countries and where we do not have deaths or the destruction of families and all that goes with war. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

Last night when I turned on the television, the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! was on. It is set during the Second World War and it is about the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. At the end of the movie, when the Japanese have had the huge success—if you could call it that—with their attack on Pearl Harbor, having caught the Americans unaware, asleep, a Japanese character says, ‘I think we have woken a sleeping giant’.

I know that many in Australia these days are critical of our American colleagues and friends. But we should look back at what America did during the Second World War; the Battle of the Coral Sea was the turning point of the Second World War. Make no mistake about it: without the Americans, we could well be under Japanese dictatorship today and perhaps not have a parliament like this. Australia was really under threat, the Japanese had progressed down to New Guinea, Port Moresby was in their sights and the magnificent battalion, the 49th battalion I think it was, went up there as a home guard. Many of the roughly 450 soldiers could not even load a rifle let alone actually shoot properly. They were just not trained. But the typical Australian courage was there—450 Australians fighting more than 4,000 Japanese week after week.

It was a terrible war with millions killed, as we all know. It was also a war in which we came very close to defeat at one stage. We saw the turnaround in 1944, luckily. We thought that perhaps that was the end of wars. But Australia went on to participate in Korea, Vietnam, East Timor—many conflicts. We supported the United States in those wars, and we know that as our big brother they would support us.

I hope that in the years to come Australia’s relationship with neighbours like Indonesia grows bigger and better, stronger and stronger. But I also know that, if that were not the case, with Australia having just 22 million people it would be very difficult if we did not have strong allies like the United States of America. I hope that our friendship continues to grow with our neighbours and that we can live in peace for hundreds of years to come.

When I watched Tora! Tora! Tora! last night, I was reminded of another attack on America, 9-11. And I thought of the thousands of people killed and the destruction of those families. Could you blame America for going after those who caused such destruction? Of course not. We are fortunate that the United States is a country that prides itself on democracy and freedom. They are not dictators; they are on our side when it comes to beliefs. They believe in what we believe in. They went out to rid the world of terrorism.

Debate interrupted.