Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my address to the Senate, which I started just before question time and in which I made two points. The first point was that it had to be noted that in this parliament—that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate—a majority of greater than 90 per cent support Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, regardless of the long and protracted and difficult engagement it has been. The second point was that this is very much an Australian fight. We are not just tagging along as an ally under ANZUS, although that is a factor, as I said. This is an Australian fight as much as any other country involved in Afghanistan. I wish to give evidence to support that claim about just how involved Australia is in this international fight against terror and our involvement in Afghanistan, and so obviously why greater than 90 per cent of the parliament support our involvement—all bar the Greens who, united as they are, are against such involvement.

Australia has suffered from the direct hits by Islamic terrorists. Over the past decade, close on 100 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks that were planned and executed from terrorist safe havens in the mountains of Afghanistan. On September 11, when the twin towers were brought down due to a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists and fundamentalists, this escalated what was already a low-lying, but certainly not a high-profile, war against terror. When those towers fell, some 15 Australians were killed. One of my most vivid memories of when those towers were under attack was of those that had to jump out of the towers in desperation, knowing they were jumping to their deaths. Some of them could well have been Australians.

Since then more lives have been lost in terrorist attacks. As we all know only too well, on 12 October 2002 in the Bali bombing, some 88 Australians were killed. I recall the ever-so-sad memorial here in the Great Hall of Parliament House, attended by the families of those killed by the bombing. No-one in public life could forget that day; it was such a moving ceremony. We have the responsibility to protect our citizens with all the force this country can provide, onshore and offshore. In 2004, we know the Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed. While no Australian citizen lives were lost per se, although the attempt was real, nine Indonesians, who were working at the Austrian embassy, lost their lives. Eleven Australians were injured and one died in the London bus bombings.

Throughout the world we have seen Australians threatened by terrorist attacks. Of course, there was a second bombing in Bali which killed four Australians and injured 19. At the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta in 2009, three Australians were killed. All these terrorist attacks were coordinated or had links to the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

This is an Australian fight. I quote Vicki Hopkins, a widow, to give weight to my point. Vicki Hopkins’s husband, Matthew Hopkins, who was only 21, was a corporal in the 7th Battalion RAR. He was shot and killed on patrol with Australian troop-mentoring members of the Afghan National Army near a village in Oruzgan province. He was the ninth Australian killed in Afghanistan. Vicki said:

I knew that, with Mat, he was over there with a job to do and that was to make the world a safer place by getting rid of these evil people. And for that I am very, very proud of Mat. The army is not over there only to shoot and kill bad people; they are over there rebuilding the lives of the Afghan people.

People say this isn’t our war, but a lot of Australians have died as a result of the attacks on Bali and September 11. Afghanistan is the heart of where these people trained to do these horrible acts against the Western world. To pull the troops out now when the job isn’t done, then, really, all those guys did die in vain.

Vicki Hopkins mentioned the evil of the enemy and we should not forget just how evil this enemy is. They are more than just indiscriminate; they target citizens, men, women and children, in the markets, in the mosques and in the schools. In particular, in the case of Afghanistan, women and girls are cruelly mutilated and murdered, all in the name of some extreme Islamic belief—evil belief.

There have been many bloodcurdling examples of their cruelty against women and girls. Further, terrorist attacks continue to this very day on women and girls. That is why it was really so galling to hear the contribution of Greens senator, Senator Hanson-Young, attacking the efforts of the coalition forces over there to protect and educate women in Afghanistan. How could she justify such criticism? What a limp and contorted rationale she came to for pulling out our troops. I refer to her speech just to point out to the Senate the senselessness of the Greens’ position. This is why she believes we should pull the troops out:

When we have statistics that only 30 per cent of Afghan girls can access education, when the maternal mortality rate in Afghanistan is the highest in the world and when 80 per cent of Afghan women are forced into marriages, what are we really achieving? Are things going so well?

So her answer is to pull out the troops. She fails to mention there was zero per cent education for women under the Taliban. This harebrained idea of hers, her solution to this problem, is to pull out the troops, the military presence, and to channel all this funding and goodwill to empowering community development through civil aid. That is the solution of Senator Hanson-Young, the Greens representative and aspiring deputy leader. What a dangerous solution. What a harebrained solution. What a comfort to our enemy. I would suggest that Senator Hanson-Young go to any one of the speeches on either side of the House, but I am going to single out Senator Kroger’s speech because she particularly researched the effect, the benefits, we are having on women’s lives in Afghanistan. Senator Hanson-Young seemed to think that 30 per cent of women being educated in Afghanistan was a failure and we ought to get out because we have not succeeded better. Senator Kroger tells us that, of the six million students who are attending school, a third of them are girls. I quote from Senator Kroger’s speech:

Dr Sakena Yacoobi is the Executive Director of the Afghan Institute of Learning, AIL, which is an Afghan women-led NGO she founded in 1995. She asserts that the women of Afghanistan completely depend on the ISAF troops. She said:

As soon as allied soldiers walk out and leave Afghanistan, the first blood shed will be women and children.

Dr Yacoobi is one of those brave women who stood up to the Taliban and risked their lives in the pursuit of helping others.

                        …                   …                   …

Dr Yacoobi is not the only woman swaying the ISAF allies to stay and finish what they began. There is also renowned Afghan human rights activist Suraya Pakzad, who founded the acclaimed Voice of Women Organisation.

Senator Kroger goes on in her contribution to quote many of the good works that many of the women of Afghanistan are not only carrying out but are being allowed to carry out; this is their contribution. Senator Kroger cites the success and, more so, the hopeful future. That is a very good reason why Senator Hanson-Young ought to reverse her ridiculous rationale for why we ought to get out. She ought to have a better argument than that; it is so shallow as to be dangerous. What the allies have done ought to be lauded, not criticised. If the Greens cannot see the very evil in the Taliban and al-Qaeda and the threat that we are up against, not only in Afghanistan but across the globe, then they are blind, crazed and dangerous. Frankly, they are all three.

Senator Nash, another representative from the coalition, put it very well when she imagined what she would tell her boys about September 11 and the growth of terrorism if we had done nothing to stop the evil. I thought that was a very succinct way of putting it—and that is what the Greens would have us do. They are mealy mouthed. They give ever-so-glib, if not slightly patronising, recognition to our soldiers—who, by the way, do not want that from the Greens, who want to pull them out. Each one of the Greens started their speech with: ‘This is not about the soldiers; this is about why they ought not to be there.’ That rationale is dangerous and it is not in the interests of Australia. It is particularly shallow coming from someone like Senator Hanson-Young.

To pull out the troops now would weaken the international fight against terror, particularly given the supreme and invaluable effort by our troops to date and the 21 lives that we have lost. It would be an abandonment of the Afghan people and our commitment to building a better society. Moreover, it would be a signal to our enemies that we are beaten. It would embolden our enemies, setting up an even worse scenario where a nuclear armed Pakistan would come under even greater threat and attacks by Islamic extremists. To withdraw our troops is the nut of the debate here; that is why the Greens brought this debate on. It was an attempt to shift the debate out into the public. That is the nut of why they brought it on; there was no higher ideal than that. They have attempted to shift the debate to have Australia pull out of Afghanistan. But, if we did withdraw, how could Australia ask for future support from our allies in intelligence—we receive valuable intelligence from our allies—or even military backup if we were under threat of terrorism. If we left the field it would be pretty hard to ask for help from our allies. You might get some but you would not get enough. You have to be there supporting your allies as well as your own self-interest. We must be part of a worldwide fight, not only for our own interest but also the interests of Western liberal democracies. We are all interlinked.

Over the years I have seen the Greens undermine these greater objectives. Frankly, they have an aversion to Western liberal democracies founded on Judeo-Christian values. They are strangers in their own country and to the basics of Australian culture and beliefs. The Greens stood against the tougher security laws that the coalition brought in in government and, for that matter, the laws brought in under Labor too. They were laws designed to fight terrorism—to give no quarter to terrorists domestically. The Greens have always had a bad word for our relationship with the United States and their fight against terrorism, let alone the international community’s efforts to fight Islamic extremism. They tell us they have not had a bad word, but they have. They have certainly given no genuine support in the fight against terrorism.

I shudder to think of the consequences now that the Greens, who have been making all these attacks on our efforts in the war against terrorism, are closer to government. They are a new coalition with the government and they are a step closer to matters of national security. They are ‘in the tent’ with regard to what shapes national security matters. I shudder to think of the influence they will have on the government in such matters in the years ahead. The Greens cannot be trusted with such information or power. They cannot be trusted with matters of national security. They will weaken Australia’s effort against terrorism and security more than they will ever strengthen it. The Greens seem to have no concept of the hate these extremists have for our way of life. That is because the Greens are strangers in their own country. If these extremists are unchallenged, this hate will multiply and become even greater and more destructive. There will be worse attacks upon Australia citizens and the citizens of the world. (Time expired).

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on our commitment in Afghanistan and to acknowledge the contributions of my leader, Tony Abbott; the Prime Minister; and the Minister for Defence. This debate within both the House of Representatives and the Senate has been a welcome restatement of Australia’s objectives and mission and also of our resolve and determination to stay the course in this crucial conflict. It is significant that, of the 226 federal members and senators, I anticipate that there will be only approximately 10 parliamentarians who seek our immediate withdrawal. I feel it is very important to say that I respect their point of view and sincerely value their contribution on such an important subject for our parliament and for our country. While I understand their deep concerns, I cannot agree with them.

That our parliament is overwhelmingly in support of our mission and of our soldiers is in stark contrast with our coalition partners, particularly in Western Europe—particularly the Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany, where the deployment of those countries’ forces has come under intense and sustained political pressure, with coalition governments falling and election campaigns having Afghanistan as a central issue. In opposition, we naturally have very limited impact on day-to-day public policy outcomes. However, that said, the coalition has in a considered and very deliberate way endeavoured to support the government in Australia’s participation in this conflict. We have tried to avoid injecting partisan politics into this issue. I point to the statements and speeches of the Prime Minister and the vast majority of Labor and coalition speakers as to the extent and success of this bipartisan stance by the coalition. The only caveat I put on this bipartisan support is with respect to the resourcing and protection of our soldiers. If soldiers in the field have and voice concerns, I will fiercely advocate for them and articulate those concerns.

The Prime Minister has said that our mission has two aspects, and I want to quote what she said:

… (1) to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin, and (2) to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

Tony Abbott, our Leader of the Opposition, has said:

Australia’s mission in Afghanistan is still to suppress the threat of terrorism. It is still to be a reliable member of the Western alliance, but it is also to help build a society where merely to be different is not to risk death. By resisting those who would impose on all a particular version of Islam our soldiers are asserting the universal right to a society where women are not discriminated against, dissent is not a capital crime and religion is more a reproach to selfishness than an instruction manual for everyday life.

On 29 April last year, former Prime Minister Rudd said:

President Obama has defined the new mission in Afghanistan as, and I quote him “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future”. Australia concurs with this mission.

It intersects with our own definition of our own mission within Afghanistan, which is as follows: Strategic denial of Afghanistan as a training ground and operating base for global terrorist organisations; second, stabilisation of the Afghan state through a combination of military, police and civilian effort to the extent necessary to consolidate this primary mission of strategic denial; and third, in Australia’s case, to make this contribution in Oruzgan Province in partnership with our allies, with the objective of training sufficient Afghan National Army and police forces and to enhance the capacity of the Oruzgan provincial administration in order to hand over responsibility for the province in a reasonable time-frame to the Afghans themselves.

I accept all of those descriptions as legitimate and as defining our intent and purpose in Afghanistan. Our soldiers and their families should take some considerable comfort and great confidence from the fact that the Australian parliament is almost unanimously supportive of and committed to them and their sons and daughters engaged in our cause in Afghanistan.

What has precipitated this conflict, and why are we so resolved? Obviously, the events of 11 September 2001 are the tangible and shocking results of a sovereign state falling to the accommodation of a terrorist organisation, al-Qaeda—an accommodation provided and sustained by the Taliban. Al-Qaeda’s currency of hatred and religious extremist inspired terrorism has a central tenet: the murder of innocent civilians both in the Islamic world and, especially, in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in the United States. We have observed this jihad in New York and Washington with the attack on the World Trade Centre in accord with al-Qaeda’s 1998 fatwa edict telling all Muslims to kill Americans. In 1996, Osama bin Laden was forced to leave the Sudan and relocate into Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan and had an active role in their ministry of defence, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda has carried out six major terrorist attacks, four of them in its jihad against the United States. In addition to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, on 7 August 1998, at the US embassy in Nairobi, al-Qaeda detonated a truck bomb, killing 212 people and injuring 4,000. At the same time, at the US embassy in Dar es Salaam, another bomb was detonated, killing 11 people and injuring 85. Of course, in the year 2000 there was an attack in Yemen on the USS Cole wherein 17 United States sailors were killed. Lastly, in Istanbul, Turkey on 15 November 2003, al-Qaeda perpetrated an attack resulting in 57 deaths and over 700 people being injured. Closer to home, of course, we are all familiar with and have heard members and senators talk about the Bali bombings and the hotel and embassy bombings in Jakarta. As recently as last year, the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 was linked to al-Qaeda. Also, the accused Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, has apparently had contact with al-Qaeda sympathisers and operatives.

The Taliban, similarly, has notoriously been associated with the most extreme atrocities against men, women and children, with children as young as 10 years of age being jailed and tortured. Frankly, the list and description of the atrocities, brutality and deranged barbarism of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan are so horrible as to make it inappropriate to recount them in this contribution. With a full understanding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their motives and methods, there can be absolutely no doubt that our cause in Afghanistan is just. Of course, the United Nations agrees with us and with our coalition partners.

We have lost 21 of our finest Australians in this conflict and had more than 150 wounded in action. I pause to acknowledge the bold and selfless way each one of them stepped forward without hesitation in our national interest, exemplifying the finest traditions of our Australian Army. I also pause to acknowledge the enduring grief their families and loved ones carry.

In the last four months I have been to too many funerals and too many RAN ceremonies and met many outstanding Australians—the mothers, fathers, wives and girlfriends of our fallen heroes. The loss to our Army of all those killed in action in Afghanistan is immense and a cause for sorrow and for tears. Every Australian shares that sorrow. Every Australian has a tear for the mother or the father, the wife or the partner of each of our gallant 21. Our 21 casualties also underline the extreme danger our soldiers face, with almost half being lost through the detonation of improvised explosive devices. This is an insidious but simple and effective weapon and all of us are committed to the technological battle here at home to devise better levels of defence against this threat.

In 2009 there were 7,228 IED attacks in Afghanistan. Of the 512 coalition soldiers killed that year some 280 were killed by IEDs. Let no one be in any doubt—this is an incredibly dangerous place. Those we have lost shall never be forgotten. Our coalition allies have also made very significant sacrifices in pursuit of this mission. There have been as of 20 October some 2,095 coalition deaths in this conflict. The US has sustained 1,273 casualties; the UK, 341; Canada, 151; France, 50; Germany, 47; Denmark, 38; Italy, 34; Spain, 30; the Netherlands, 24—and I pause to acknowledge the trust and loyalty and the quite amazing relationship that the Australian defence forces had with our Dutch allies in Oruzgan province—Poland, 22; and of course our own, 21. Another 28 member countries have sustained various casualties below the Australian figure with the highest being Romania at 17.

The other countries to have lost soldiers are Norway, 9; Estonia, 8; Georgia, 5; Sweden, 5; Hungary, 4; the Czech Republic, 3; Latvia, 3; Portugal, 2; South Korea, 2; Turkey, 2; Belgium, 1; Finland, 1; Jordan, 1; Lithuania, 1; and our neighbour New Zealand, 1. I should also make mention of the loss of 62 Spanish soldiers who died in Turkey on 26 May 2003 when their plane crashed whilst returning home from this theatre. This is a special and unique commitment by so many countries and their soldiers. I also wish to honour their sacrifice.

I say again, there can be no doubt that this cause is good and that the cause is just. It is fashionable by those preoccupied with the negatives of this campaign to compare Afghanistan with Vietnam to exemplify the futility of our endeavours. Such a comparison misrepresents the topography, the climate and the consequences of failure. The terrain is extreme, the climate similar, the dust is choking and the extremist and fanatical enemy is immersed within the civilian population using human shields—often children—at every opportunity We fight an enemy almost indistinguishable from ordinary innocent Afghans.

Our contribution of 1,550 troops is our most significant combat commitment since Vietnam. With our deployments in the Solomon Islands and East Timor, Afghanistan is a demanding and difficult undertaking, given the size of our Defence Force. Afghanistan is the second-least developed country in the world. As a battle space for a counterinsurgency this theatre cannot readily be compared with any other region in the world. The terrain alone is a major obstacle to operations, particularly helicopter operations with dust, heat and very high mountains causing special problems. Movement is restricted and predictable. Oruzgan is a province of 22,000 square kilometres with a population of about 300,000. It is about the same size as the federal seat of Hume.

Such are the circumstances within which we fight and seek to successfully complete our mission, a mission that is simply described but most difficult and complex to execute. There are, however, many positive signs. Travel between towns and cities is beginning again, particularly air travel. Markets and bazaars are functional and busy. Children and particularly girls are attending school and reconstruction of vital infrastructure is proceeding at a steady but increasing pace. Quite amazingly, there has been on average a 40 per cent electoral turnout for the rounds of voting that have gone on within the country.

Our soldiers have acquitted themselves very well in a large number of significant engagements in executing the intent of the Australian government and the Australian parliament. Three months after the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, members of our Special Air Service Regiment—in Operation Anaconda in the Shahi-Kot Valley, in March 2002—provided significant and timely intelligence to air support elements to relieve US and coalition forces pinned down on the floor of the valley by around 1,000 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. Signalman Martin ‘Jock’ Wallace received the Medal for Gallantry arising from this engagement. On 7 December 2004, in California, President George W Bush awarded our SAS Regiment a Presidential Unit Citation for action carried out between October 2001 and March 2002 in Afghanistan. This was only the third time such a citation had been awarded to an Australian unit, the first being in Korea and the second in Vietnam.

On 26 November 2006 a soldier identified only as Sergeant A from 4RAR (Commando) became the first recipient of the Star of Gallantry, our second-highest bravery award. Sergeant A was awarded the medal for his actions whilst assisting in the extraction of threatened coalition forces in Oruzgan province. Sergeant Matthew Locke of the SAS Regiment won the Medal for Gallantry, our third-highest bravery award, in October 2005 during Operation Spin Ghar, when his patrol came under heavy fire. Sergeant Locke, without regard for his own personal safety, led a two-man team to neutralise anticoalition forces to prevent the patrol from being overrun and repeatedly exposed himself to machine gun fire. He was awarded the medal in December 2006. It was less than one year later in October 2007 when Sergeant Matthew Locke, whilst on patrol, was fatally shot by small arms fire.

On 26 October 2007 4RAR (Commando) received a Unit Citation for Gallantry in action in Afghanistan for a period from 25 August 2005 to 2 September 2006 for being in operations fighting a series of battles and skirmishes against a resourceful enemy. The task group was able to neutralise the enemy on a number of occasions in previously impenetrable sanctuary areas. During the 374-day deployment, the combat element spent 309 days in the field undertaking over 100 missions resulting in 139 combat engagements. That was an absolutely amazing performance.

On 16 January 2009, Trooper Mark Donaldson was awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest award for bravery our country can bestow. Trooper Donaldson, an SAS trooper, during an operation without regard to his own safety sought to protect injured comrades and to rescue an interpreter under direct heavy enemy fire. He was subsequently named Young Australian of the Year in 2009.

Finally, Private S, Major M, Captain T and Lieutenant Colonel P were all recognised for acts of gallantry and service in Afghanistan in this year’s Australia Day honours list. Private S received the Star of Gallantry for his acts of conspicuous gallantry as a lead scout in Afghanistan. There are many more examples of outstanding bravery and courage by our soldiers in Afghanistan and I apologise to all of those that I have not mentioned. We can all take great confidence and satisfaction in the calibre and high quality of those in uniform who guard our best interests. I have had the honour and privilege of meeting many of them in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in my home state of Western Australia at Swanbourne. It is impossible not to be in awe of their skills and professional dedication. I know I speak for all parliamentarians when I say a heartfelt thankyou to all of them for their service.

I make one final observation. There is a flaw in our approach: there is a requirement for a broader range of thinking about what Australia can do in terms of work by NGOs and civilian contractors within this country. I know of a number of Australians working in Afghanistan providing assistance and support to the civilian population—yes, at some risk but nevertheless with some considerable measures of success. The Australian government must seek them out and take their advice and create another dimension to our task in Afghanistan—that is, a civilian dimension.

In an engagement such as this I am of the firm view that the only appropriate time to talk of withdrawal and exit strategies will be when it is obvious to all that the task and mission has been successfully completed, and not before. This campaign is tangled, intricate and lethal but we and our coalition partners are there for the right reasons and no-one should be in any doubt that we will prevail.

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

Firstly, I support our troops in Afghanistan because I believe it is still possible to ensure Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. I believe that to pull our troops out of Afghanistan now would be an act of great betrayal. It would betray the lives of the 21 soldiers who have been killed in action. It would betray all those diggers who have been injured in action. It would betray the families and friends of those 21 soldiers who have been killed in action. It would betray the people of Afghanistan, who we have made a commitment to—to help them govern their country on their own. It would betray our close ally the United States, who we have committed to stand beside.

Does this mean that we can never withdraw our troops from Afghanistan? No. What is does mean is that we should be very careful about what we promise and about the scope of our commitment. Currently, we have committed to help the people in Afghanistan by strengthening their security and defence forces in Oruzgan province so eventually the Afghans can look after themselves. Yes, I know there are other commitments but that is the one that I will focus on.

Obviously, we cannot stay in Afghanistan forever, but to walk out now while the job is half done would be crazy. It would be an act of great betrayal. But obviously all Australians are concerned about the casualties arising from this war. Losing one Australian soldier is horrific and hard to take, and as the death toll rises, more and more Australians are becoming uneasy about our involvement in Afghanistan. In fact, as the death toll of Australian soldiers rises, along with the government stating it is only going to get worse, more and more Australians continue to question: ‘Why don’t we just pull out?’ especially when there is also a growing feeling we just cannot win this war.

I admit that I too had started to grow more and more uneasy with our involvement in Afghanistan. That was when I decided it was time to do what I have always done before reaching a conclusion on a significant issue: get out of my office and go to the coalface and find out firsthand what is going on. So I requested a trip to Afghanistan. Even though I was very unhappy about how long it took the government to arrange for me to visit Afghanistan, I am thankful to the government for finally arranging a visit for me three months ago.

My objective for the visit was to see firsthand the conditions and hear from soldiers and their commanders their views on two big questions. The first question was: is it realistic to expect that once Australia completes its training and mentoring role that the Afghan army and security forces will be capable of operating effectively on their own? The second big question is: are we supporting our soldiers enough and ensuring we are not putting their lives at risk unnecessarily?

With regard to the first question, after talking with our soldiers, the Australian command, the US command, the Dutch command and the Afghan command, I do believe it is still realistic to conclude that our efforts in the training and mentoring of the Afghan army and security forces will allow the Afghan army and security forces eventually to operate effectively on their own. But I also acknowledge that the next two years is critical in determining whether Afghan army and security forces will eventually be able to operate effectively on their own. I believe they will, but the next two years is absolutely critical, and to pull out now would be crazy and a gross act of betrayal.

The second question, about support for our soldiers, is very tough because I was only with our troops in Afghanistan for a few days, but I do believe we can and should do more to support our soldiers and I will outline some specific recommendations that I hope the government will action with some priority. I am mindful that some may say it is inappropriate for me to make recommendations as I am not a defence expert and I have never served in the defence forces. I can understand those views. However, I make these recommendations based on personal observations, along with discussions with our soldiers and others. Before moving onto my recommendations, I would like to emphasise how impressed I was with the professionalism and commitment our soldiers have towards their task—especially given the extremely tough environment and the life-threatening intensity of operations.

My first recommendation is that the government should implement a comprehensive, ongoing plan that engages and informs the general public on why Australia needs to be involved in Afghanistan. I will say that again: the government should implement a comprehensive, ongoing plan that engages and informs the general public on why Australia needs to be involved in Afghanistan. The rationale for this recommendation is that our soldiers on the front line are burdened by the growing sentiment from the public that they should not be in Afghanistan. I feel the government could do more to keep the public more supportive of our involvement in Afghanistan. It is heart wrenching to think what it would be like to be on that front line. I know we pay them, but it causes them heartache to know that back in Australia there is growing public sentiment that does not support what they are doing there.

Even back in July this year the government conceded they did need to do that when they stated:

… 55 per cent of Australians were “not confident Australia has clear aims in Afghanistan”.

How can the Australian public be supportive of what our troops are doing if 55 per cent of Australians are not confident Australia has clear aims in Afghanistan? It could be that 90 per cent of politicians are out of step with the community, because what I have heard throughout this debate is, I would estimate, 90 per cent of people saying, without a doubt, ‘We’re doing the right thing,’ but in the community we have allowed it to prevail that 55 per cent of Australians are not confident Australia has clear aims in Afghanistan. That clearly is a responsibility of the government and it is very important. I know the government is doing a lot, but I make that recommendation because I am burdened from when I was over there talking to some of our soldiers.

Recommendation 2 is that the government should secure additional rotary wing capacity to adequately support our troops in Oruzgan province. The rationale for this recommendation is that we are placing our soldiers’ lives at an unnecessarily great risk because tasks that should be performed by rotary wing support are being carried out by road or delayed because of lack of rotary wing support.

My final recommendation, recommendation 3, is that the government should implement a 12-month trial appointment of an independent soldiers advocate that has the responsibility to make direct recommendations to the regional commander of the operations. The rationale for this recommendation is that I detected that some soldiers felt that their concerns were not taken seriously or actioned adequately or in a timely manner. The soldiers advocate would ensure confidentiality for soldiers at all times as they work with the command on resolutions. I am not saying that the command has to do what this recommendation says, but it would at least assure our soldiers on the front line that the top level has heard directly from them about significant issues. I think it is worth a pilot. I detected quite seriously that some soldiers felt their concerns were not taken seriously enough, and that burdens me greatly. So where to from here? This Afghanistan debate is important, but its value will be short-lived unless the government is prepared to take action on these and other worthy recommendations. It is worth stressing that again: this Afghanistan debate is important, but its value will be short-lived unless the government is prepared to take action on these and other worthy recommendations from this debate.

I conclude by sharing how much admiration I have for our soldiers, especially those who work outside the wire. We have seen the pictures, we have seen the conditions and we know what it is like to have a 40-plus degree day, but I did not realise how harsh the conditions are in Afghanistan. Your body has to operate in stinking hot temperatures of 40-plus degrees and a dusty environment not just for a few days but for months. Your life is at risk not just for a few days but for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months. You are always on the edge and alert, not just while you are awake but also while you sleep. You are subconsciously aware that it is not safe and your life is still at risk.

Your emotions are numb. Death and injury are all around you, no matter where you look. You hear that another one of your fellow diggers has lost their life or been injured. This tugs at every human’s heart, and I cannot say how humbling it was to talk to our soldiers on the front line. I thank them for allowing me into their world. I remember standing on the training ground where the combat engineers train the troops in the finding of improvised explosive devices, and I was nearly in tears—one step and you are gone.

People in this Senate know me. I have not made these recommendations lightly, and I urge the government to think about whether we can support our troops more. I believe that we can, and I have made these three recommendations because my heart was torn. We need to do more and we should do more. I do not want to take anything away from the support that the government gives our defence forces, but there are questions that have to be answered, and the implementation of the three recommendations I have made would go a long way with our defence forces.

There is one other issue that I will raise. When you come back to civilian life after months outside the wire, it must be nearly impossible to feel like a human being again. From what I understand from talking to people, some soldiers would probably use some of the services that we offer a lot more, but they are worried about what would go on their record if they used some of those services. I do not know how to solve that one, and that is why I have not put a recommendation down, but it is something that I think the government also needs to look at. I thank the Senate.

Question agreed to.