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

Australia has always contributed over the last 100 or so years to playing its role in achieving world peace. This war against terrorism is no different. Australia has a proud history when we look at the heroic efforts of Australian soldiers in the Boer War, in World War I at the Battle of Beersheba, in World War II with the Rats of Tobruk achieving world peace there and especially in New Guinea, in the Korean War, in the Vietnam War at the Battle of Long Tan where Australian soldiers excelled with courage, in East Timor where we brought stability and now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I said at the start of my speech last night, it would be good to live in a perfect world; however, we do not. We see what terrorists have done. Brad Ridley from Forbes, who was one of my customers, was unfortunately killed in the bombing in Bali. There was the devastation of the towers in New York on September 11. Surely we cannot just turn our backs on what these terrorists are doing. If we do, then their murderous and destructive ways will simply continue. That is why we have to be part of this allied contribution in Afghanistan to bring Afghanistan to a state where it can look after itself, govern itself and have a strong defence force and police force to enforce their own laws to look after their country.

It is very sad that already 21 Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. I have one ambition in my life, and that is never to stand at the gravesite of one of my children. Unfortunately, many parents of those 21 soldiers have had to do that. That is sad in itself. We are fully aware that, if you join the Defence Force—if you join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—you are taking on a dangerous occupation. Unfortunately, we have now seen the loss of 21 soldiers in Afghanistan. If those soldiers could speak to us today I wonder if they would say, ‘Get out of Afghanistan; walk away,’ or would say: ‘We have a job to do here. We have to clean this mess up in an effort to rid the world of terrorism so future generations can, hopefully, live in long-lasting peace.’ To cut and run now would be a betrayal in my opinion.

Our soldiers and our allies deserve our total support. Afghanistan must be able to stand on its own two feet. It has been a haven for the training of terrorists. We know that that is where many learned their terrible trades, if you can call them that, and carry out their activities against innocent human beings. I know that our soldiers are amongst the best, if not the best, in the world. They deserve our total support. They have a job to do. It is expensive. Unfortunately, it has been going on for a long time and will probably continue to go on for several years yet. But to cut and run now, to leave Afghanistan, to walk away from our allies who stuck with us during the Second World War, especially the United States of America, would be to me a betrayal of what we believe in and a betrayal of our allies.

I keep going back to the point that I wish we lived in a perfect world. Hopefully, one day we will, but we are far from it at the moment. While we have innocent people being killed and blown up by terrorist activities then this is something that our nation and our allies should never turn their backs on. We believe in freedom, we believe in democracy and we believe in peace, but so often peace comes at a cost. That has been the case in the world wars, in Korea, in Vietnam and in the following wars, and this is no different. This is a war against terrorists. We must do our bit and fight the war so that eventually we can say that we have had the win, we have had the victory. We have seen success in Iraq. We now have to go the full distance and see the victory day in Afghanistan.

I am not going to speak for much longer, but I just say in summary that I support our efforts in Afghanistan. I support our efforts in search of world peace, to rid the world of terrorism, to do the right thing by so many Australians—more than 80 were killed in Bali alone from the terrible bombing there—to do our bit and to play our role so that future generations not only in Australia but around the world can, hopefully, live in a peaceful world. As I said, peace comes at a price. It is terrible we have to pay that price. But I do believe that we should throw our total support behind this effort. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, we will see the victory which is ultimately the goal.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first time that many in this parliament will have debated the presence of our troops in overseas conflict zones. The question, however, takes on an altogether new meaning when you are a member of the defence family. This in fact is the third time that I have confronted this question. The first was in 2003 when a family member prepared to deploy to Iraq at the commencement of those hostilities, the second was in 2006 when he deployed to Afghanistan with the Reconstruction Task Force, and this is the third. Anyone placed in this position knows only too well the mixture of emotions. You reflect hourly—or, certainly if not hourly, daily—on the safety of your family member, the validity of the mission, the wisdom of executive government in sending them and the risk that they and their fellow soldiers confront. You cannot help but reflect on what your reaction would be in the event of receiving news that a family member is wounded or even worse. I cite yesterday’s news when we were advised that four Australian soldiers were wounded last week in Kandahar. Every Australian feels deeply for those soldiers and their families, as we do indeed for those who have been wounded elsewhere, or for the 21 who have died in Afghanistan.

As a person who was not in the Australian parliament at that time, I used to reflect on what I might say to the Prime Minister had our family been placed in that dreadful position. Ironically, here I am today. For me, this is a very personal debate. We are in the parliament to address an issue and we are somewhat remote from deployment. But let me assure you that everybody in the defence family is watching our contributions and the outcome of this debate, and I include both serving members as well as their families. For them, this also is very personal.

I applaud the opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss in open forum our deployment of troops overseas, so long as that debate is informed, mature and respects our obligations. However, I am firmly convinced that the decision to deploy our troops is that of the executive government of the day and not that of parliament in open session. We simply cannot have a circumstance in which every member of parliament, or senator, is briefed adequately by defence and others for the purpose.

Whilst I welcome the opportunity for vigorous debate and the presentation of alternative views which will emerge, there is a distinct and serious obligation on each of us to ensure that we say nothing to cause Australia to descend into the chasm of national shame which followed our withdrawal at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. I refer, of course, to the demonising of Australian troops upon their return. The decision to deploy them was political. They simply did as soldiers have always done and are doing Afghanistan—that is, complying with the demand of executive government and the orders of their superiors and performing to the best of their abilities. Whatever may be our views of Afghanistan, our presence and the possible outcomes, all of us have a clear responsibility to ensure that the Australian community differentiates between those who make the decision for our troops’ deployment and those who carry out the orders.

Why are we in Afghanistan? We are not a major player on the world stage. We do of course, however, perform well above our weight. We are proud of our contribution in the region and around the world. We have a strong tradition of providing aid and assistance in emergencies, even recent ones such as the tsunami, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Of course whilst we always could do more, we have a proud and strong record in Australia of long-term agricultural, medical and educational support throughout South-East Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific Island regions. I would say that it is entirely appropriate that we extend that philosophy into military support in these same spheres.

We all know, of course, of the strong alliance we have with the United States. It is pivotal to our security policy and it brings with it an obligation to honour that commitment. At the same time, Australia must examine on a case-by-case basis, having regard to our own commercial, regional and security objectives, those actions in which we join the United States. I also believe it is appropriate, in the context of Afghanistan, that we are seen to support the USA and our many NATO allies in the International Security Assistance Force or ISAF. We have long, strong, historic commercial and defence relations with many of those who are involved.

I turn to support for our troops on the ground. Contingent on executive government making the decision to deploy our troops, it is essential in my view that they are adequately resourced in terms of personnel, equipment and support. Having met in April of this year with ADF personnel at many levels in the UAE at Al Minhad, I can attest to the seriousness with which each and every one of them undertakes his or her role and their commitment to the task. It was impressive. I have, however, formed the view that we can do more to assist our front-line troops by providing them with more firepower through indirect weapons support on the ground. My own experience in my career involved in emergency situations, especially those remote from a home base, has instilled in me one principle: it is far better to have extra resources at hand and not need them than to need them and not have them. I fear we are in a circumstance in which we have placed our troops in need without supply. Our troops on patrol on the ground need additional assets such as mortars and artillery to provide that dedicated generic indirect fire support in those circumstances when their own safety is threatened and a successful outcome of a mission is compromised. I believe we saw evidence of that only recently in a 3½-hour firefight when inadequate support was offered. These assets are already in our ADF ordnance supply and could readily, in my view, be deployed into the theatre of action.

As a parent of someone who deployed into war zones, I was always clear that Australian troops enjoyed the same level of protection and conditions of engagement as those of United States troops. It was my belief that our troops, when acting under fire and in accordance with the orders of their superiors, enjoyed the same level of immunity from prosecution as their American counterparts in the event of the regrettable outcome of civilian casualties being found in a conflict; that local command in the theatre of operation had the capacity to deal with violations. I believed that Australia, like America, have not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I now learn that that is not the case. America did not ratify that treaty; Australia did. So what then happens, I ask, when Australian soldiers are engaged in the same action alongside American troops? Ours might face the prospect of criminal proceedings and prosecution, with dire consequence if found guilty, while US troops will not. To me, this is unacceptable.

The parliament sends our troops into a war zone. Military commanders direct operations and targets. Are we giving them the necessary protection when the outcome differs from that which we expect? This is no ordinary conflict in Afghanistan. The Taliban launch offensives from within homes in villages. They keep women and children in compounds in front of them to act as shields for their own protection. The terms of engagement with the terrorists are radically different in Afghanistan from conventional warfare. I believe we need to re-examine our position in relation to the Rome Statute of the ICC. We need to re-establish consistency with US soldiers, with whom our own troops are so often involved in direct line of fire.

I can assure the Senate that, as the parent of a serving officer at that time, I would have resisted my son’s deployment to Afghanistan with all the force I could muster had I realised the legal risk to which he was exposed in carrying out his duties.

I now turn to the role of the ADF. The emphasis of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan has shifted from reconstruction to training of the Afghan army. I would urge that we do not abandon the excellent initiatives of the earlier objectives of trades training and reconstruction in the villages in Oruzgan province. I am disappointed that the Australian media have not adequately informed the Australian community of the very many successful reconstruction projects which have been undertaken under the direction of Australian Defence Force personnel. The program has been aimed at trades training for young men in the villages so that they can conduct building projects in their own and neighbouring villages. This is the Australian military at its best: consulting with village elders to determine necessary projects, building the skills level of those within the village to be able to perform those construction tasks, providing the building materials to ensure projects can be undertaken, as well as the supervision, and then the security to safely see those projects through to their completion. This is genuinely ‘teaching Mohammed to fish rather than giving him a fish’.

Projects completed over the last few years in Oruzgan in Afghanistan include the building of schools for both boys and girls, health clinics, wells closer to villages for drawing water and, I must say from my own professional background, even a veterinary health facility. As we would all know, the goodwill generated from these projects is immense and ongoing. I urge that the Australian community are made aware of the excellence of these programs. Let us not lose the emphasis of this reconstruction or the value to the local communities.

The focus, of course, has now turned to training Afghan army personnel. If we are to succeed in this endeavour there are some fundamentals that I believe need to be addressed. Our troops have built up excellent relations with Afghan army personnel. They are respected as good soldiers, fearless, enthusiastic and loyal. However, it is my understanding they are poorly paid and they rarely return home for leave, with the inevitable result that desertion rates are unacceptably high. This could surely be addressed by them being paid in a timely manner, with a significant proportion of those funds going to their families in the villages from which they come, and allowing them the opportunity to go back to the areas, remote from Oruzgan, from where they are drawn. Not surprisingly, the inability for them to be able to do this means the rates of desertion are high, and failure to return after leave is equally unacceptably high. I believe the ADF in association with its ISAF coalition partners can address these issues.

Many in our community believe that the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorists do not pose a threat to Australia or Australians commensurate with the cost of our response. This is no doubt a debate that will be had. But I, for one, am satisfied as a result of the events of the last few years in this region and around the world that the threat is real, it is ongoing, it must be addressed and we must be part of that process. I accept that it is a complex issue, creating as many questions as it answers, but this only serves to strengthen my view that executive government has made the correct decision to place our troops there and to maintain them. The questions include: can the terrorists move across borders from Afghanistan if NATO led coalition forces exert sufficient pressure? Do other countries such as Pakistan have the capacity and the will to counteract terrorists in their countries if the threat continues and expands? Does the Afghanistan government have the capacity to overcome the Taliban, even if they have the desire? Is there room for negotiation between the parties to achieve a reasonable peace in that country and, if so, what will be the relevant position of power from which each side will negotiate? I believe the terms of these negotiations should surely include: the rights of women and children, evolution towards some form of democracy, and the basic rights which we take for granted, including universal education, health, security and freedom of expression—some of which have been reported already in this place.

If Australia is to contribute to these outcomes, we must continue our active service role in association with ISAF member countries. I believe there is a legitimate role for the ADF to be part of the NATO led mission in Afghanistan. The decision to deploy, to remain and, ultimately, to exit should be that of executive government and not that of members and senators voting en masse.

To conclude, if we are to deploy our troops to active war zones, of which Afghanistan is demonstrably one, then they must be adequately supported in terms of troop numbers, assets available to them and legal protection. If we err, we should err on the side of caution and provide more than we believe they need. Without going into the events confronting three of our military personnel, I believe we must provide a level of protection for those who are in active service, under fire, so that they receive the protection that they want and that we as a community believe they deserve.

In the annals of Australian military history there are many examples where the innovative use of assets has turned a battle to our advantage. We need look no further than the World War I battle at Le Hamel, on the Somme, when General Monash, for the first time in military history, combined the use of artillery, infantry, air support and tanks to achieve an objective in less than two hours which others had spent many months and far too many lives failing to achieve by conventional means. Our troops need to know that they have our support. They need to know that we will not spare our assets, our time or our attention to them.

The decision was taken to deploy our personnel to support the NATO led coalition in Afghanistan. I know from discussions with serving personnel in the Middle East and those who have returned that they are proud of our contribution and that they fully support the deployment. We must stay the course until the objective is met or a solution is reached. Only then will we have honoured the memory of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin by acknowledging all those who have taken part in this debate in both places. It is a very important undertaking by the parliament and one which I think is timely, particularly with regard to recent discussions both in Australia and elsewhere.

It is history which shows Australian support for the initial foray into Afghanistan and against the Taliban regime—at the time, a move with bipartisan support. In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the Taliban regime’s harbouring of the al-Qaeda masterminds of those egregious crimes, the view held here and elsewhere was that the continued existence of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan posed a threat to both international and, in Australia’s view, national security. We had an ANZUS alliance partner who had been attacked on their home soil. Australia’s obligation to support the United States in taking swift action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that harboured them was a very important obligation.

This was an engagement directed at the ruling Taliban regime, an unelected regime that not only harboured the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and other terrorist acts but whose hardline rule exacted an appalling toll on the history and the culture and the people of Afghanistan. I have spoken before—long before being in this chamber, ironically—of the devastating impact of the Taliban on the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan in particular. I spoke in this chamber, some years ago now, of the completely without merit, completely obscene destruction of the historic Buddhist statues at Bamiyan by the Taliban for no other reason, really, than that they could.

It is important to remember aspects of those debates, I think, and the debates which many of us have taken part in in other places, as we sit here, nine years later, debating Australia’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. I am not sure who, or how many of us for that matter, would have envisaged the duration of our commitment and whether it would still be ongoing in 2010. I think, to that end, it is understandable that public attitudes and support for Australia’s continued involvement in Afghanistan have experienced changes over that time. As I said at the beginning, I think it is important that we are having this debate here and now about staying the course. It is an important debate, which is healthy in a great democracy like ours, a democracy that so many others do not have the privilege to enjoy.

I know that several members of the parliament have taken the opportunity to express their very strong reservations about ongoing Australian involvement in Afghanistan. Their views are genuinely held and passionately argued. However, they are not views that I can share. I could not support the abandonment of the people of Afghanistan and, in Australia’s case, of the Oruzgan province specifically to the fate of a resurgent, pre-eminent Taliban. We have that insight already. It is not an attractive picture. It is about violence. It is about lawlessness. It is about extremism. It is about hate. It is about anarchy. It would certainly come back, should Australia and other nations that are supporting efforts in Afghanistan elect to withdraw, in my view.

I think it is extremely important to reiterate at almost every opportunity when issues of this nature are under discussion that the deployment of Australian troops is never a decision made lightly. It is not made lightly in terms of the conscience of those members of government who make it. It is not made lightly by the leadership of the Defence Force who advise on it. Participation in those deployments is not taken lightly by those men and women of the ADF who are fully engaged in the task. It is also not a decision made lightly in terms of the very real costs of fine and proud Australian soldiers. They are costs which are immeasurable. They do not appear on a balance sheet anywhere, except perhaps a balance sheet in the hearts and minds of their families and friends. For those who have given their lives in this cause, for their families and their friends, for their mates who still remain and do the job, we must, I think, note and record that these are not decisions made lightly.

I have spent many years in this place working on defence issues. That work has in fact taken me to Afghanistan during the period of Australian deployment to see for myself some of the work being done there.

I have seen the good, the bad and the singularly unattractive of the Australian defence forces, but, through all of that, I have great respect for those who serve, for their leadership, who grapple every single day with these issues, and for the decisions that they make in that process.

I would say, though, that the costs that you can add up, the costs that you can put on a balance sheet, are in many ways very concerning. If you look at the United States budget for the Department of Defense, for example, you see something like in excess of $335 billion to date has been spent on the direct costs of the war, with a further $120 billion requested for the 2011 financial year. In comparison, the Australian government, whilst spending billions of our own dollars, has made a similarly important financial contribution for us. But let us put it in perspective, with consideration of the amount of money that the US State Department has spent to fund reconstruction and aid across conflicts like Afghanistan and, in this case, also Iraq: $59 billion. To put that into perspective, more than twice as much money has been spent funding military engagement in Afghanistan in the last 12 months than has been spent by the State Department on aid and reconstruction efforts during the entire nine-year period of conflict.

So, while I absolutely support our engagement in Afghanistan, I do think that it is important that we consider that balance or, some would say, imbalance. I think there is an issue to be addressed by those of us engaged in the decision-making process politically, in this country and elsewhere, when the size of the commitment of prosecuting the war is so large and the size of the commitment of prosecuting the peace is so small. I will talk further about prosecuting the peace, so to speak, in a moment.

I believe that we should finish what we set out to do, that we should assist and support the people in Afghanistan in achieving what they are currently not able to achieve, which is a government with some stability, a government with some solid and transparently operating institutions and rules, and a society which comes as close to free and fair as they can get. There may be some who see those ambitions as perhaps unreal or overly ambitious, who think that that is not possible and question whether our efforts thus far are worth while.

While some are lost in the sea of pessimism which surrounds our engagement in Afghanistan, there are some very worthy organisations which contain very committed individuals on the ground who are doing very valuable work for the people in Afghanistan. That is over and above own government agencies like AusAID and the Australian Federal Police, for example. There are Australian NGOs currently engaged in Afghanistan. And I note that, in terms of engagement in this debate, the Australian Council for International Development wrote to members and senators recently in regard to these Afghan and Australian civilian and military aid issues. I do not agree with everything they have written, not by a long shot, and I do not agree with all of the premises on which they operate, but I do think that their raising of our awareness and hopefully our interest in some of this work in Afghanistan is a very important contribution to the discussion. Having said I do not agree with them, I expect to hear from ACFID again quite soon! We will see how that goes.

Organisations that do that sort of work do not always receive the sort of recognition they deserve. They are carrying out vital grassroots work, though, with the people of Afghanistan. As I said, they are building the peace, if you like. Whether it is World Vision, Oxfam, Habitat for Humanity, the Fred Hollows Foundation or CARE, the sort of support they are providing—backed up by our military presence—would not be provided, in my view, if we were not there. Realistically, it would be difficult for them to continue in the face of a completely resurgent and in-control Taliban, for example.

Afghanistan at the moment has one of the most poorly resourced education systems in the world—and in fact, as most of us are aware, the formal education of girls was effectively nonexistent under the Taliban—with an adult literacy rate at less than 30 per cent. CARE Australia is one of the organisations who are determined to assist in turning that around. They are running a community-organised primary education program which is currently endeavouring to meet the primary education needs of over 3,000 students—most importantly, 70 per cent of whom are girls—with ambitions to reach many thousands more. They are also operating an innovative program which targets the social and economic reintegration of the many thousands of displaced women in Afghanistan. Their support services cover a very wide array of roles. They include things like vocational training, microfinance—I know many members of this chamber have a longstanding interest in the effective use of microfinance—and community outreach activities. I think that they make a contribution, at the same time that I think our military engagement makes a contribution, to the development of sound institutions and to the observation of the rule of law, which in fact will not develop unassisted, and I believe that we should do as much as we can to help this process both developmentally and, in terms of security issues, militarily.

In Australia and, most particularly, in our very robust parliaments, I think we often take for granted the opportunity to speak our minds. Freedom of speech might not be something which is explicitly enshrined in the Australian Constitution, but I think it is a pretty cherished and fiercely protected right in this country. We do have the freedom to speak our minds, to argue the case, to argue against authority, to champion a cause or basically just to tell people our view, usually without fear of persecution—unless it is a ‘very important’ debate about football or something like that! But it takes courage to speak out on issues we feel strongly about, especially when we know powerful forces disagree with us. Having the courage to speak up for what we believe in in the face of intransigent power is, I think, admirable. Doing so in the knowledge that it can mean death is probably beyond my capacity to describe, but let us start with ‘truly courageous’.

I want to speak very briefly in my concluding remarks today about one Afghan woman and to use the phrase ‘truly courageous’ to describe her. Her name is Dr Sima Samar. Many of you here may have met Sima Samar over the years on the couple of occasions that she has had the opportunity to visit this region and our country. She is the head of the Independent Afghanistan Human Rights Commission. She has made a lifetime of risking her life for her beliefs. As a medical doctor, she was forced to flee first Kabul and then Afghanistan entirely when her husband was arrested by the regime of the time. She fled to Pakistan where she established the Shuhada Organization, a body dedicated to the provision of health care for Afghan women and girls who, like her, had been forced to flee their homes due to violence and persecution.

Her full story is complex and distressing. I have heard her tell it personally and it is a deeply moving story and a deeply distressing story. Ultimately in 2002 she returned to Afghanistan to take up a role as Minister for Women’s Affairs in the Afghan Transitional Administration before being forced to resign her post. Her crime, her offence, at the time was public questioning of certain laws in an interview with a foreign newspaper. In fact, not only was she forced to resign but she faced death threats and she faced ongoing harassment. A group of religious extremists went so far as to take out an advertisement in a local paper labelling her the Salman Rushdie of Afghanistan.

When I met her at a conference of representatives of national human rights institutions in Fiji—it was a very obscure place and time to meet a woman of her calibre—I was struck by her courage and her tenacity in standing up for those without a voice in Afghanistan, for championing unpopular causes like women’s rights and reform of sharia law in the face of what seems from the outside to be almost insurmountable odds.

For me, the war in Afghanistan and our military engagement in Afghanistan are not just about the many men and women I know personally who have served on behalf of Australia and continue to do so. It is not just about endeavouring as best as we are able to remove the Taliban from their engagement in this area. It is about security, it is about human rights and it is about peace. It is about supporting the Sima Samars of this world who do so selflessly risk their own lives to better the lives of those around them. I do not believe that our work in Afghanistan is complete until people like her no longer have to risk their lives to make their voices heard, and I do not believe that is a forlorn hope.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1915 Afghanistan, according to history, was working through one of its all too rare periods of peace. At the same time a group of women moved to Europe to make a statement about the need for peace in a war that was raging across that part of the known world at the time. Those women were not, as some people claimed, dangerous, they were not difficult and they were not mentally deranged. However, they were strong, concerned and questioning the future of war. Those women formed the basis of an organisation called the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which is still active and strong in our community now. Their cause was the need for political and negotiated solutions to international conflicts, the promotion of women, the safety of women and children in any war-torn area and the need to look at ways of working together to form a peaceful solution.

One of the key aspects of the discussion we are having in this place at the moment must be to ensure that people who ask questions and people who are concerned are not seen as being disloyal and are not seen as being in some way treasonous. We have, as Senator Payne talked about, the right to speak freely, to have these discussions and to ensure that people feel engaged with the process. Many people in our country now are strongly interested and concerned about what we are doing in Afghanistan, and they have the right to know. In fact, one of the things we need to rebuild around this whole discussion is the fact that people want to know what our reasons are for taking action, what our plans are for the future and how we are looking after the people who are serving our country in overseas placements. That is their right.

Another key aspect must be that questioning what is going on is not in any way being disloyal or nonsupportive of the personnel of our armed forces. There tended to be a bit of a gut reaction in this place only a few years ago, just after I came here, when we were talking about our engagement in Iraq. Any questioning or concerns raised were determined to be somehow disloyal. It built up, as we have heard a little bit in the discussions today, some kind of divide between respect and support for our personnel—the people who are doing the job that they chose to do to protect our country—and interest in what is going on and the future of what our deployment will be.

Certainly I do not pretend in any way to understand what it is like to be a member of the armed forces. What I do know when I talk to people who have made such a strong and clear decision to serve our country and their families—because we are talking about a family commitment in so many ways—is that they have chosen a job and they want to be well trained. They understand that they act at the direction of the government and they expect that their country will support them while they are doing their job and when they come home. I do not think there is anyone in this parliament who disagrees with that. We have heard protestations both in the other place and here about how concerned we are. That is important because our personnel need to hear that message consistently. They need to know that, no matter how people feel about decisions about war, once a decision is made that Australian troops will be serving they have the absolute support of the people in this place—and there is no doubt that they do.

We have in our community much more awareness and knowledge of what is going on in the world than we had in the past. Governments in this Australian parliament have for generations been making decisions about military deployment. Very rarely, only really in the depths of World War II, has there been an immediate threat to the Australian border. If there was a threat of invasion to our country, we can understand the reaction for the defence of our country. All we have to do is walk through any Australian town and see those incredibly confronting war memorials to realise in how many fields of battle and in how many countries Australian servicepeople have done their job.

Australian governments have been making that decision, and I believe that every Australian government of whatever flavour has taken the decision extremely strongly, understanding the full import of what they are doing. But I think that Australians in the community now, particularly because of the immediacy of the media worldwide, have more information about what is going on—and it is not all accurate information. One of the problems is that, with the availability of a wide range of media, sometimes you do not get absolutely accurate stories, and that is something we should consider very seriously. It is important that people in Australia who follow what is going on in a number of places including Afghanistan understand that when they question things they need to question the media reports. Nonetheless, we can see in our living rooms, in our bedrooms—wherever we have TV sets—the absolute horror of war, and it is a horror, because people are being killed.

Senator Payne referred to having the opportunity of visiting a number of places. War is not a good place to be and the victims of war cover so many areas. They cover women, children and families. The displacement numbers across the world now are too confronting for people to truly understand. Also, the statistics are not well kept. They are kept much better now than they have been in the past, but the figures from Human Rights Watch about the number of Afghani citizens who have been killed just in the latest conflict in Afghanistan, since 2000, show numbers around 7,000. We all know that is not right. We all know that many more people have been killed or wounded, have had their lives disrupted or have lost their homes or livelihoods. Nonetheless, every single person is a victim of the process, and our military engagement in that process is focused on ensuring that there is peace. That is why we are there. We have heard many people restate that the background to the decision to go to war in Afghanistan is for security reasons, to stop terrorism, but the final outcome must be to secure a peaceful world in Afghanistan for the people who live there. There is not enough time to talk about the evil and the horror of what has gone on in that country because of the Taliban and because of years of engagement in war in that place. It would be difficult to find a single family in Afghanistan who can remember peace, let alone understand what it is like—let alone to plan, hopefully, for the future, a future where there will be peace in the area. But that is part of our job.

In terms of what will happen in the future, one of the reasons that Australia is working so hard in Afghanistan is to ensure that there will be an understanding of peace in that country and that there will be education for all Afghanis. Certainly we know that circumstances in that area have been particularly horrific for women and girls. We have heard a number of senators talk about the statistics that we have about the changes that have happened only in the last few years in access to education in areas where it was never available before. We know that Australian aid agencies have been working in the area for many years looking particularly at the areas of health and education but responding specifically to the poverty that is entrenched in the Afghani countryside. It is very difficult to have a sustainable economy and a future when there have been so many years of conflict and war. But that certainly will be the future for Australia’s engagement in the area, because our military engagement in Afghanistan will end at some time.

When you look at the history of Australian deployment in every war in which we have been involved, there will be an end to our military engagement. But that will not be the end of Australia’s engagement. As Senator Payne said, a number of aid agencies that have been working actively in that area have been in contact with parliamentarians in this place, looking at the way forward and where we need to go in that area. Our commitment, as I said, is to an ongoing peace to ensure that the Afghani nation can actually have their own government, their own services, their own security and their own infrastructure, and what we need as an Australian community is to understand that. What we also need to have is an understanding that the government will be open and will give regular information to the community about what is going on.

I know that the Prime Minister has agreed that there will be a debate in this place on a regular basis about updating what is happening in Afghanistan, and I think that is important, because one of the things that needs to happen is the rebuilding of trust. As I said, people have access to the media, and I also think people are thinking more about what is happening in our world. As I have said many times in this place, Australia is part of the global community and we cannot just have our own slice of the world and not be engaged beyond that; that is an impossibility. I think more people in our community are looking at what is happening and weighing up where Australia fits.

There has been an abuse of trust in recent years in terms of the ability of people to have full information—or as much as they can have. I know that when we are in a war situation there are security reasons and issues around personal safety, so full information can never be shared. But we can ensure that what information can be shared is shared. Subsequent information has become available with regard to the Vietnam War and, more recently, the Iraq war, and the media indicate that there was some confusion. There was some inaccuracy in the arguments that were given about a range of countries across the world and the need for engagement in those places, and people are questioning that. I think that interest has been raised by past history.

What we need to do is to rebuild in a certain way an understanding in the wider community about the decisions that government make. We know that Australians respect the role of our military personnel. I think that the public way in which the lives of the soldiers who have been lost is remembered and their lives celebrated through the media and through local community involvement, sends a particularly clear message to the Australian community. We share the loss when we give our condolences and our sympathy absolutely to the families involved. Through media involvement as well we see not just the Australian loss but also the return to America and to the UK of soldiers who have been lost in the conflict.

We also see—and I mentioned this earlier—the horrific loss of civilians, and I think that there is a wider understanding of that than there has been in the past. So my hope is that we will continue to have this engagement with the community, reinforcing the decisions of government and the respect for the work of the personnel who are fighting in very dangerous circumstances.

I opened up my contribution by talking about the women who went to The Hague in 1915 from all around the world to talk about the need for the engagement and empowerment of women and about a way of working towards a peaceful solution in the midst of a horrific war—the largest war that had been known by the world until that time. Earlier this year, a group of women from Afghanistan went to an international meeting in London which was looking at the future of what was going on in Afghanistan. Originally they did not have a seat at the table, but through community pressure they got some publicity and they had engagement in an international meeting that was held in January 2010, looking at the future of what was going to happen in Afghanistan in terms of building a peaceful solution. The Afghan women’s civil society was represented at that meeting. I cannot help but see a similarity between the women in 1915 and the women from Afghanistan in 2010.

The communique that came out of that conference, which was a high-level international discussion, responded to the questions and concerns that were raised by those Afghan women and acknowledged that the future of any peaceful solution in Afghanistan had to engage with women’s empowerment. One of the key things that came out of that meeting was an absolute commitment that the Afghan government would continue to pass legislation that protected women’s safety and freedom in the new Afghan state. It also talked about the need to have women engage in future governance in that area, and the wonderful woman to whom Senator Payne referred is one of the leaders in that area.

We know that there will be an end to the war in Afghanistan in some way. What we need to know is how the peaceful future will be entrenched. We have a commitment from this country to ensure that that will happen. We have already had the commitment in a military way; we need to continue to have the commitment in further aid and development in that country. I have no doubt that that will occur. In terms of the way we move forward, I say that there must be engagement with the community in Australia, and one of the core aspects—and something that I will continue to talk about in this place—is to ensure absolutely that the women of Afghanistan will be involved in the future of Afghanistan and the horrors that we have heard about will no longer be the daily expectation of women and girls in that country.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to participate in today’s debate and make a contribution, I firstly extend commendations to the Prime Minister for allowing members and senators to participate in the debate on this extremely important issue of Australia’s role in Afghanistan. I believe it is important that we all have the opportunity to have a say in a topic which affects each and every one of us in this country. It is truly a privilege to be able to raise this topic in a democratic parliament and a country which many other countries envy.

As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Defence Subcommittee of that committee, I understand the importance of our troops’ continued role in Afghanistan and completely value that role. Through my limited involvement and participation in the defence committees, I have had the opportunity to be involved in inquiries. One such inquiry involved a visit to Timor-Leste in 2009 with the Defence Subcommittee—and my memory, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, is that you were with me on that trip. On our brief visit, the committee was briefed about the Defence Cooperation Program, or DCP, and its role in creating and sustaining a professional military culture and assisting the local people in education and rebuilding. Australia has been involved in East Timor since 1999 and the DCP was established in 2001. The DCP is an example of nation building and shows Australia’s commitment in assisting the new government in securing its future. Similarly, Afghanistan is also a country in need of assistance.

In Australia, we are privileged to live in a democracy whose citizens have the freedom to speak and think independently. We have the freedom to make our own choices and to learn from our mistakes. We have access to education and the ability to study whatever matter one chooses without oppression. We have access to a free and adequate health system and many more social benefits that we sometimes take for granted. And we have the opportunity as citizens to elect our parliamentary representatives in local, state and federal parliaments, a right many countries are still denied. I am not suggesting our customs and beliefs are better than anyone else’s; however, citizens of countries like Afghanistan deserve the opportunity to exercise the same liberties that we enjoy here. This is why it is imperative that we continue to support the Afghani population in their quest to be free from the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Australia has been involved in Afghanistan since 2001. We have joined our allies to ensure that Afghanistan is never again a place where al-Qaeda can recruit and train people to kill and where terrorists can hatch plans to kill our loved ones. On 11 September 2001, we lost 10 Australians in the twin tower terrorist attacks. On 12 October 2002, we lost 88 Australians in the Bali bombing. In 2005, we lost another four in the second Bali bombing. Any loss of life is tragic, and there are always those left to remember their loved ones—someone’s mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt or friend. All of their families and friends have to carry on with their lives without those loved ones because their lives were unnecessarily lost due to an act of terrorism.

This is what we are trying to prevent from reoccurring. Our presence in Afghanistan has already hurt these terrorist groups, and our continued presence will ensure that they do not have the capacity to recover and to conscript and train more insurgents. At present, we have 1,550 Australian troops in Afghanistan, with 1,241 located in Oruzgan Province. In April 2010, Australia announced that it would double its civilian contribution, and there are now 50 working Australian civilians and 10 defence civilian personnel in Afghanistan. Since combat began on 7 October 2001, al-Qaeda’s practices have been greatly affected. It no longer has training camps or safe havens in the country. However, the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, and the Afghan government still face a persistent insurgency, particularly in the country’s south.

Should you be wondering what has been achieved since 2001, the record stands. Already differences can be seen in Afghanistan. School enrolments have increased enormously from one million just boys to more than six million today, with two million of those enrolments being girls. Health services have dramatically increased. Before 2001 only 10 per cent had access to health care; now 85 per cent have access to basic care. More than 39,000 community based infrastructure projects have been identified in the country. These projects include wells, clinics and roads. Thousands have been employed through the rehabilitation of roads. About 10 million Afghans now have access to telecommunications compared to 20,000 in 2001, and there are now 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. This is a far cry from the oppressive regime under the Taliban.

Our involvement in Afghanistan is to provide stability and encouragement to enable the country to stand on its own two feet and to begin its nation building. We are doing this as part of our membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation through the NATO-led ISAF, which includes 47 different countries which also have troops in Afghanistan. According to ISAF’s website, its duties include:

… in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.

By laying down these foundations, we are giving the Afghanis the opportunity to build new lives, to gain access to education, to improve their health system and, ultimately, to be free from oppression. With all these countries coming together for a common cause, it legitimises and communicates that this alliance is doing what it set out to do.

Before 2005, ISAF duties were based on stabilisation. Now ISAF is targeting insurgents and protecting key population centres while working with the United Nations and the Afghan Government. ISAF is also focused on working with Pakistan to deal with extremists in the bordering regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are currently 140,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. This includes 120,000 from ISAF and the United States has an additional 20,000 from Operation Enduring Freedom.

Along with the United States, New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia, we are laying the foundations for a strong security force by providing training to the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade and the Afghan National Police. The capability of the ANA 4th Brigade to conduct security operations has increased, and the Chief of the Defence Force assesses it will be ready to lead security operations in Oruzgan within two to four years.

Some believe that it is time to pull out our troops. But the truth is, if we pull them out now before the country can stand on its own two feet, then the losses we as a nation have suffered will be in vain. Our contribution to this war has not been without its grief. As a nation we have suffered losses. We have lost 21 brave Australians; many young men who have put their lives on the line so that we can enjoy the freedom to live without fear, and so that Afghanis, one day, may experience the same liberties as we enjoy.

Without knowing the troops and families personally, as a resident of Brisbane, where the 6th Royal Australian Regiment and 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment are based, these losses bring this war so much closer to home. I cannot even begin to imagine how these families are feeling, and I am sure they are very proud of what their loved ones have achieved and served for our country. Many of our troops have also been injured in the line of duty and will carry their suffering for the rest of their natural lives.

I would also like to acknowledge the Australian troops who are currently serving in Afghanistan. You have put your lives on the line, you have sacrificed time away from your families, you have missed birthdays, you have missed weddings, you have missed first days at school, you have missed the first steps of your child and you have missed the birth of your own children. You have done all of this for your country. Your commitment and bravery for this country is unwavering and extraordinary, and your dedication to ensuring Afghanis have the opportunity to live in peace is beyond words and we express our thanks. We thank you. We thank your families. And we thank your patriotism.

Once again I would like to thank the Prime Minister for providing this opportunity to debate this very important issue. I am encouraged by the number of government senators, members of the House of Representatives, opposition and cross-benchers who have shown interest and made their contributions towards this very important debate.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A parliamentary debate on the topic of Afghanistan is long overdue. Indeed, not only is this debate overdue; the parliament generally does not devote anywhere near enough time to considerations of foreign affairs in its schedule. There are, no doubt, good reasons for this, but it certainly cannot be that we are short of issues. We live in a world of tumult and turmoil, and Australia faces a wide range of foreign policy challenges that should be the subject of a wider public debate.

Afghanistan is a very appropriate place to begin this public conversation because there we are confronted with a desperate struggle for the country’s future. This, of course, is not the first time that Afghanistan has been a crucible of conflict. As students of history would be well aware it has often been called ‘the graveyard of empires’. For some of the war’s critics, this remembrance of things past is enough to underscore the futility of the task we have undertaken there.

Certainly, Afghanistan has posed challenges for those emboldened to take an interest in its affairs. I recall that in an earlier life, well before I entered the Senate, I published a book entitled The Indian Ocean: Perspectives on a Strategic Arena. In the chapter on Afghanistan, there appears this passage:

Several factors will play critical roles in determining whether the Soviet Union succeeds in … Afghanistan. These include the policies adopted by Pakistan towards the insurgents, the extent of external support …, the success or failure of Soviet attempts to convert divisions among the insurgents into open conflict, the Soviet’s ability to establish a government in Kabul that commands a large armed force (and has a wide base of support) and the scope and duration of the Soviet commitment.

That passage was written about a different time in Afghanistan’s history by Zalmay Khalizad. As some senators may be aware, Dr Khalizad has since gone on to greater things, including serving a term as the United States Ambassador to Afghanistan. While he and I strongly distance ourselves from Soviet ambitions in Afghanistan, Khalizad’s comments remind us that in this country some things seem not to change very much at all. Substitute the US or the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, for the Soviet Union, and we arguably have a pretty fair description of the range of challenges that confront us today.

If ever there was one truth about Afghanistan, it is that the historic struggles which have taken place there have never been just about the future of Afghanistan itself. They have always been about part of a much grander landscape. This is no less true today than it was in the 19th century or in the 1970s or 1980s. Afghanistan has always been part of a very volatile region in world affairs. If we are to comprehend the full extent of the challenge we confront there, we cannot engage in the comfortable delusion that it can be easily quarantined from the influence of its strategically unstable neighbourhood. As a landlocked state, it is surrounded by great powers, many of which see it as an arena for their own ambitions. No part of that neighbourhood is more strategically interconnected with Afghanistan than its eastern neighbour Pakistan. Democratic governance in Pakistan is already at grave risk from, among other things, a violent internal insurgency which includes al-Qaeda backed extremists. In recent times, intensified bombings and terrorist attacks testify to the growing self-confidence and a brutal and bloody determination to destroy an already brittle political order. The Pakistan government is struggling to contain this threat. Should its resolve falter and Pakistan fall under the influence of groups aligned with al-Qaeda or one of its indigenous invariants, it would be a strategic disaster.

The fall of a democracy, however imperfect, to Islamic insurgents would give massive propaganda to al-Qaeda and embolden extremism in Asia and elsewhere, to say nothing of the threat that would emerge if Pakistan’s nuclear warheads fell into the hands of the terrorists. The chaos and instability in Afghanistan only serve to fuel this risk. As the analyst Stephen Biddle has written in relation to the United States—but it is an observation that applies to other Western countries, including Australia—we all have an interest in preventing Afghanistan from aggravating Pakistan’s internal problems and magnifying the danger of an al-Qaeda nuclear-armed sanctuary that might exist there. We are, of course, assisting Pakistan to confront the severe challenges it faces. I trust we will continue to do so to the full extent of our capacity. But Pakistan is a sovereign state, wary of outsiders’ offers of assistance and determined to be responsible for its own security. In Afghanistan, the circumstances are very different. There, our opportunities to assist in bringing peace and stability to a broken and divided country are that much greater.

Aside from our interest in Pakistan’s future, Australia has strong reasons for continuing to play a role as part of the international coalition that is striving to offer a better future for Afghanistan. These reasons have their origins in Australia’s membership of the international force that intervened to bring down the Taliban and liberate the country from its ugly, oppressive rule in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. There is little doubt that, at the time, the Taliban was providing a safe haven for al-Qaeda training camps and that Afghanistan occupied a central place in Osama bin Laden’s global network of terror. Certainly, things have changed since then. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is much diminished, and the threat which existed in 2001 and al-Qaeda’s base of operations is now more likely to be found on the Horn of Africa or across the border in Pakistan. Nevertheless, the strategic reality is that the significant, dangerous and continuing linkages between the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain and are not seriously in doubt. They are a persistent threat to Afghanistan’s stability and to Western interests in the region. The insurgents’ freedom to move across the porous international border confronts ISAF with one of its greatest operational challenges in trying to eliminate their presence. We would be taking a massive strategic risk if ISAF were suddenly to leave Afghanistan without a high degree of confidence that al-Qaeda’s alliance with the elements of the Taliban had not been crushed.

Australia also has a national interest in Afghanistan borne of its alliance with the United States. The many critics of this argument seem to have wilfully ignored the circumstances under which the United States and its allies, including Australia, entered Afghanistan. As Fullilove and Bubalo from the Lowy Institute pointed out recently, 2001 was not an exercise in US unilateralism of the kind usually so widely condemned by the left. It was a case of Washington acting in concert with the international community and, of no less importance, it was an exercise in self-defence, sanctioned under international law as part of an international response to al-Qaeda’s terrorist attack of 9-11. Perhaps most significantly, the mission was undertaken with a mandate from the United Nations which has been renewed year after year. In short, for Australia, being part of the ISAF coalition in Afghanistan is not only an entirely appropriate exercise in alliance maintenance, it is also an organic part of the international obligations we have assumed in the struggle against Islamic extremism with other members of the global community.

There can be little doubt that we are facing a tough fight in Afghanistan. Our enemy is ruthless, enterprising and determined. The increasing casualties amongst ISAF troops, along with more violence against civilians and an alarming number of political assassinations, all point to stepped up insurgent activity and to higher levels of insecurity. In Kabul and elsewhere across the country, many Afghanis appear to have limited respect for their government, which they often see as dysfunctional, corrupt and lacking in legitimacy. The disruption of commercial and business activity and the fragility of economic enterprise are making everyday life extremely hard for most Afghanis. Beyond Afghanistan, among the populations of the countries contributing to ISAF there is a growing restiveness at the alarming human and financial costs of the war. In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that there is a considerable pessimism about Afghanistan’s future.

For all that, I think there is good reason to look forward with some confidence. There are some encouraging signs of progress in things like school attendance; the construction of road, health and telecommunications infrastructure; and small-scale business enterprise beginning to grow. On the security front, it is true that for a long period of time the international coalition struggled to design a strategy that would secure Afghanistan’s future. While the Taliban was never a movement with a widespread following or deep-seated historical legitimacy within Afghanistan’s society, it did manage to secure government in the 1990s. Now, however, it is a highly factionalised entity supported in some parts of the country but only tolerated in others and deeply hated elsewhere. The ISAF counterinsurgency strategy, now being led by General Petraeus, offers the best opportunity in nine years of conflict to further erode and degrade the Taliban’s strength. With its key elements of clear, hold, build and transfer, the strategy is designed to deliver Afghanistan’s security into the hands of its own people. Although results are agonisingly slow, I am cautiously encouraged that this strategy together with the massive program of civil reconstruction now underway offers Afghanis a more secure and stable future.

Were we now to abandon Afghanistan, all the military and economic good we have so far achieved would likely be a wasted legacy. I struggle to imagine that the Greens and others who continue to oppose our continued presence in Afghanistan would think this a desirable outcome after all we have sacrificed there. We should not have any illusions about the lengthy time it will take to secure Afghanistan’s future. We and our coalition partners are likely to be engaged in military operations for some years. A civilian presence will likely continue long afterwards. However long we are engaged, we cannot afford to lose sight of what is surely one of the most important salient realities of the Afghan conflict: we are acting as friends and allies of the Afghan people. It hardly needs saying, but this is their country and they will remain long after the international forces have departed. This means that, whatever our strategic ambitions might be, we have to respect the aspirations of the Afghani people. This requires us to temper our expectations of success. As much as we and, indeed, some Afghanis might wish it, prosecuting this conflict to the point of securing the unconditional surrender of the Taliban is unrealistic. As is now beginning to occur, they will have to be a party to the negotiations that ultimately will see an end to the conflict.

The reality is that we do not need a perfect Afghanistan to secure our strategic objectives there. Our aim should be a country that is stable and free enough to offer the opportunity for the Afghani people to decide on their political, economic and social future. It should also be sufficiently independent of the influence of the Taliban and its insurgent allies to ensure that Islamic extremism and the terrorism it begets does not regain a foothold. The challenge we now face is to create the conditions where these objectives can be achieved. As I have said, I consider the counterinsurgency strategy now in place to make this a realistic possibility.

Australia’s contribution is a significant one, and I express my gratitude and enormous respect for the professionalism of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police, the officers of AusAID and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the other Australian citizens who daily risk so much in the service of our interests. The Australian contingent in Afghanistan may not be the largest among ISAF forces, but it is for the most part in the southern province of Oruzgan, one of the most violent and unstable parts of the country. Australians face constant danger, as we are tragically reminded when we recall the 21 members of the ADF who have already lost their lives.

Sadly, we face the prospect of further casualties before our commitment to Afghanistan comes to an end. But, like other senators, I am struck by the fact that many of the families who have lost loved ones in this conflict want it known that the soldiers who have fallen have been committed professionals and maintained a belief in the importance of their mission. At the moment, I am far from convinced that we are doing enough to degrade the Taliban’s insurgence. While our SAS commando and other forces are doing a magnificent job disrupting Taliban and insurgent networks as part of the Special Operations Task Group, there is a strong case for expanding their capabilities. I acknowledge that these types of military operations place our soldiers at higher risk, but they are vital to the ultimate success of our mission. For that reason, I trust that the government and its military advisers have the option of an expanded and enhanced force under serious consideration. But ultimately, as Mr Abbott said in his contribution to this debate, we on this side of the chamber recognise that this is necessarily a matter for the government.

In concluding my remarks, I note that, in her contribution to the House last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that Australia would continue to stay the course in Afghanistan. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear in his remarks, we in the opposition endorse that position very strongly. Part of the challenge we face in sustaining our commitment is to strive, as far as possible, to ensure that it has the support of the Australian people. A recent poll on this point is far from encouraging, with only 45 per cent of Australians being in favour. I cannot help but think that this is at least in part a consequence of the previous Labor government’s apparent reluctance to accept its responsibility and diligently strive to make a convincing case for our commitment.

I detected in the Prime Minister’s remarks the other day a determination to take a more muscular approach to our Afghanistan commitment. I much welcome this shift in policy. Following through on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan is an immensely important enterprise. Its strategic rationale needs to be spelt out more clearly, the case for staying on needs to be made with greater conviction and the Australian people need to be convinced of the stakes. To that end, the government needs to go on the offensive to arrest the steady decline in public support for the war. The nation expects it and the brave men and women in the field deserve no less.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great humility that I rise to make a small contribution to the debate on Afghanistan in this place. I say ‘a small contribution’ in the context of the enormous courage and bravery of our serving forces who are representing us as we speak on the ground in Afghanistan. There is no easy fix to the many problems and challenges that country is facing. The landlocked region in the Hindu Kush has experienced centuries of tribal welfare, ethnic fighting and religious tension, which has left the country deeply scarred and ensured the complexity of the problems that it faces today. After nine years the country remains fragile, with the hope of peace and stability and lingering challenge. The desire of all people to live, work and play in a secure environment is a right that all should share and remains the noble cause of this near decade long dispute.

The coalition’s mission has made considerable differences to the lives of the Afghan people, especially to women and children, who now enjoy more freedom and security. The war has harnessed international cooperation in an endeavour to counter extremism and terrorism. Afghanistan is no longer a breeding and training ground for terrorists. This in itself is a great accomplishment. We now need to assist the Afghans to build a future free from terrorism. Nonetheless, the last few months have been tough for our troops as we are in the middle of what the military commanders describe as ‘the fighting season’. We mourn the significant losses of the coalition and, in particular, those 21 brave Australian soldiers who have given their lives to bring peace and stability. I salute them for their courage, conviction and belief in the quest for democratic freedom. To their families, I send my deepest sympathy and respect. I cannot and never will pretend to understand how difficult it would be to lose a loved one in the prime of their life. I can only imagine the life changing consequences and we must never forget the sacrifices they have made. If history has taught us anything, it is that we must strive to provide every level of support possible for the families. As political leaders, we must ensure that the legacy of honour that these soldiers have died for is never forgotten.

This debate gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to the pursuit of democracy and freedom in Afghanistan. It also provides the Australian parliament an opportunity to tell our allies and international partners that we are there for the duration. This is, of course, the responsible thing to do, and it is not in the Australian DNA to cut and run. Political and military strategists must be the ones who continue to consider the best course of action for the Afghan people to assume responsibility and control of their own country. Whilst our troop numbers of 1,500 are small in comparison to the overall coalition force, our men and women play a significant role to bring stability and peace to the region. The troops are there to protect the population from insurgents and remove their safe havens. They are now fulfilling a vitally important role in training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade, our primary mission in the Oruzgan province. This mission is well on track, with the aim that the army brigade will be ready to lead security operations within two to four years.

Debate interrupted.