Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, two senators each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 75. Senator Siewert proposed a matter of urgency and Senator Fifield proposed a matter of public importance for discussion. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The pressing need for Australia to confirm a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The pressing need for Australia to confirm a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan.

This is an important motion, which comes after the most recent news of the terrible further loss of three good and true Australians in the service of their nation in Afghanistan. We have had the condolence motion for Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin today. I want to add the condolences of the Australian Greens to the loved ones, the families, the friends, the associates, the Defence Force personnel who knew these brave Australians, and their communities. It is a horrendous loss under extraordinary circumstances which cannot be described as anything other than murder. These losses come on top of the deaths of 29 other Australians and a mounting injury toll, which for this year alone stands at 44. The total physical injury toll is in excess of 200 Australian personnel since the nation became involved in October 2001.

The point of this motion is to give the community of Australia, particularly the community of service personnel in Afghanistan, some security about the intentions of government. We read in the media an Australian declaration that, while there is a general intention of withdrawing troops by 2014, based on America's declared timetable, we will be heavily involved in Afghanistan long after that. That includes the involvement of special services troops and training personnel. By dint of logic, those training personnel will be continuing in quite dangerous circumstances beyond 2014.

The Greens have brought forward this motion on the commitment of Australian troops to the longest war in which we have been engaged in the history of the Commonwealth in a parliament that has held the least debate of our involvement in a war in that history of more than a century. In deploying Australians to positions of great danger in the service of the nation overseas, it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to track the safety, security and progress of those service personnel all the way. I think this parliament has failed to do that. As a result of a commitment made by the Prime Minister in forming office last year, which was part of the arrangement with the Greens, we did have a parliamentary debate for the first time in a decade of involvement in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister has committed to that becoming an annual feature. We Greens believe that debate ought not be just annual but should be ongoing. What we see in Afghanistan is an escalating loss of Australian lives. It is important that we reiterate through parliamentary debate what it is that motivates our nation to continue to put our service personnel in growing danger in Afghanistan and what it is that we intend to achieve by continuing to put them in that grave danger overseas. I cannot put it better than Hugh White, commentator on defence matters, Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU and a visiting fellow of the Lowy Institute, who in an article in the Age on 12 July this year said:

June 2010 was an especially bad month, so let's exclude the six deaths that month from the calculation as an aberration. That leaves 12 soldiers lost in 12 months. One a month.

How many more months? The Australian government is coy about this, but Barack Obama isn't. He has said US forces will be out of the fighting by the end of 2014, and we can be pretty sure that ours will leave with them. That's about 42 months.

So on these trends, if nothing changes, we should expect that an additional 42 young Australians will be dead by the time we pull out of Oruzgan. If we could change our operational pattern and return to the casualty rates of 2006-09, 30 of them would still be alive.

He went on to say:

This debate has to start with a sober assessment of what we could possibly achieve in Afghanistan from now on. Even if we concede (which I doubt) that what happens there matters much to Australia, what are the chances of making a difference in Afghanistan from here on?

Nothing our forces do in Oruzgan will make any difference unless the wider coalition effort can achieve big improvements in the country. But that is not going to happen. It is clear the coalition operations are winding down.

Here is the question for every member of this parliament to address: are we willing to see a loss of lives, conservatively estimated at 40-plus—on current trends it will be higher than that—of good and true young Australian Defence Force personnel when there is no articulated goal to achieve by 2014 that would dramatically alter the circumstances of Afghanis that is effectively not being achieved now? One thing we may argue is the ability of the Afghan National Army to be able in some way to control the country better than it can do now. The events of the past few days show what a hazardous proposal that is to enjoin with any degree of certainty.

This is a grave and real matter for our parliament to consider. It is my opinion that this parliament is remiss in not having debated this all the way down the line. There is no good moment in which to debate this, but this debate was brought on by the Australian Greens with real and heartfelt concern, which I know is shared by members of parliament right across the spectrum. We need to put some of the duty back onto our shoulders, to have a parliamentary debate on whether or not we should effectively be asking scores more Australians to sacrifice their lives and their families and loved ones to accept that loss. If we are going to ask for that sacrifice to be given, we need to be able to state exactly what goal that sacrifice is to achieve. My belief and the belief of the Greens is that, in putting forward this motion which Senator Siewert has brought forward, this parliament cannot cogently argue that this sacrifice should be made. Therefore, our troops should be withdrawn safely to these Australian shores.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just 48 hours ago three more Australian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and seven more Australian soldiers have been wounded. It is always difficult to find words at a time like this. While at home we go about our business, our defence personnel in Afghanistan are at risk. As we speak today about the war in Afghanistan, and Australia's role in that war, we face the harsh reality that there may be more casualties as the weeks and months unfold. No-one in a war zone is safe; nowhere in Afghanistan is out of harm's way.

These three young men, all in their 20s, were Australians who died in a foreign land because Australia sent them to war. Nothing will diminish the pain so many will feel at their deaths. Each death strikes hard a family, a neighbourhood and a network of friends. Their loss is forever. Each death strikes hard the Australian Defence Force. This debate this afternoon about the need for Australia to confirm a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan cannot take place without the events of Saturday uppermost in our minds. At times like these it is inevitable that our involvement in Afghanistan is questioned. It is also inevitable to question whether our national interest demands we be there.

I have argued before, and I still argue, that in our best traditions as an international citizen, Australia should play its part in Afghanistan. Our role there is critical for our national security. I have often said that in the modern world Australia's national security interests extend beyond our borders and beyond our region, that we cannot become safe through isolation and that we cannot ignore either the threats or the responsibilities that come with the modern interdependent international community.

We operate in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate, a mandate that is renewed annually. We operate as one of 48 partners in an International Security Assistance Force. We are in Afghanistan at the request of that country and we are playing our part to ensure that Afghanistan is no longer a training ground and operating base for terrorists. I do not accept that there is no goal. Australia has a clearly defined operational objective in Afghanistan: to train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to enable the ANA to take full responsibility for security in Oruzgan province.

I well recall saying, when defence minister, that I did not want to see the men and women of the Australian Defence Force stay in Afghanistan one day longer than necessary. My view has not changed. We should complete our mission, fulfil our objective and leave as soon as the job is done. I believe that less security in Afghanistan will mean less security for Australia and Australians. If terrorist operations are allowed to take place in Afghanistan, Australian lives will be at risk.

Again today we are feeling the tragic consequences of the dangers and risks of our involvement in Afghanistan. I believe that we as members of the Australian parliament have an obligation to assist those grieving families to make sense of why they have lost so much. I believe that we have an obligation to ensure that no Australian soldier has died in vain. I believe we should finish the job and go.

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

I am the only speaker on behalf of opposition senators this afternoon on this motion, and I will be very brief. On behalf of opposition senators, I want to record our condolences to the families and friends of our three soldiers lost in action on Saturday in Afghanistan. I also, on behalf of opposition senators, express our extreme disappointment that the Greens would persist with such a motion on such a sad day as this in the Senate. May I say that, notwithstanding these disastrous and tragic events on Saturday, our resolve remains undiminished to see this mission in Afghanistan through. Today is not the day to be debating our presence in Afghanistan. Today is a day to mourn in quiet respect and admiration for the supreme sacrifice made by these three soldiers.

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

I rise today to express my condolences for those Australian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan. There have been 32 killed since 2001 and most recently three over the course of the weekend, with seven others wounded and an Afghan interpreter also killed. When I was looking at what Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin had been involved in in Afghanistan and indeed in their lives in the Australian Defence Force, I looked at their dates of birth. Two of them were born in 1984. That is the year when my eldest son was born, so I feel very strongly a sense of connection to those families and those mothers. I look to my own son and I think: two young Australians in the prime of their lives who were born in 1984 have died. One had a wife and three children. There was another young Australian, Corporal Birt, who was only 22.

It is precisely when you look at those figures and you feel for those families and you know the enormity of what they are suffering that you ask the question again: why are we there? Indeed, there is a letter to the papers today from Major-General Alan Stretton, retired. He says:

THE main objective of our intervention in Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qa'ida. With the death of bin Laden this has now been achieved. The US president has already announced a date for the withdrawal of American forces.

With three more Australian deaths over the weekend and another seven wounded, how long will it be before both our political parties realise they are sacrificing the lives of young Australians for no purpose?

The spectacle of politicians from both parties agreeing to send our finest Australians to their deaths and then appearing on television offering their condolences to grieving widows and relatives is sickening.

The policy that we can train the Afghan army to take over security in Afghanistan is laughable. The Afghan government is corrupt, and its army has been penetrated by Taliban forces whose main activity is killing allied forces operating in their country.

Elements of the Australian Defence Force have now been in Afghanistan for over 10 years—surely this is long enough.

That is the tenor of comment being made by people who have spent a lifetime in the defence forces.

I have twice now heard in this debate—once from Senator Faulkner and once from Senator Johnston—that we are in Afghanistan to 'stay the course' and to 'see this mission through'. The question has to be asked: what course and what mission? We as parliamentarians have to be able to answer those questions for the troops still in Afghanistan and for the families who have lost treasured family members—we have responsibility for our troops being in Afghanistan. This question ought to have been debated in our parliament many times. It has not been but it must be now. Why are we in Afghanistan?

Is it true that fighting in Afghanistan will protect Australia from terrorism? The answer is no. Afghanistan was the source of past terrorist threats to Australia, but we know that al-Qaeda no longer needs Afghanistan. It has found other bases in Yemen, in Somalia and in Pakistan. It makes no sense to keep insisting that fighting in Afghanistan will protect Australia from terrorism.

What about the second reason: 'staying the course'? We have heard this afternoon that training the Afghan army in Oruzgan province will help build a stable, pro-Western defence force in Afghanistan. But the question is: who will that army, which we are working so hard to train and build, take its orders from? What guarantee do we have that that army will support a government in Kabul? As Hugh White has said:

An iron law of politics is that no army is ever better than the government it serves. It is an illusion to think that we can build a strong army in Afghanistan and then trust it to support the legitimate government. Even if we succeed in building an effective force in Oruzgan—and that is itself a long shot—we will still be as far as ever from the kind of government we would like to see in Afghanistan.

So the question is: why are we there? Why are we still in Afghanistan?

What about the argument that we have a global responsibility? Yes, we do—we have global responsibilities, but they can be fulfilled in other ways than armed intervention. Historically, as has been clearly noted, the more military pressure is put on a fragmented society such as Afghanistan the more a coalition against the invader becomes the likely outcome. That is what happened in the 1980s with the Soviet occupation and that is what happened with the British in the 19th century.

What about the international effort? Everybody else has withdrawal dates. In June 2011, President Obama announced:

Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer … our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace … By 2014, this process of transition will be complete …

Canada has withdrawn its 2,800 combat troops over the course of 2011, although it has committed up to 950 personnel to take part in the NATO training mission with the Afghan National Army. The Netherlands ended its combat mission in Afghanistan in August 2010, withdrawing 2,000 combat troops. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has said that UK forces will withdraw from combat roles by the end of 2014 and that about 400 troops would be withdrawn in the year to February 2012. On 24 June 2011, France announced plans for a phased withdrawal of its 4,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Spain's Prime Minister has said that his country would start withdrawing some of its 1,500 troops from Afghanistan in 2012 and that it would complete the pullout in 2014. Belgium is due to commence its drawdown at the end of 2011. Poland is due to commence its drawdown of 2,560 troops in 2012. Every other country has set out a timetable for the withdrawal of its troops.

If you are serious about, as you say, 'staying the course' and 'fulfilling the mission', it is about time you explained how you are going to stay the course or fulfil the mission as troops are being withdrawn right through Afghanistan. You either, as has been put very strongly by the military personnel, provide the resources you need to complete the job or you withdraw. Do not pretend that you can stay the course and achieve the objective of the mission without the necessary resources.

I think it is pretty hard to ignore the fact that we are, as Hugh White has suggested, in Afghanistan simply because we are fulfilling an obligation of the US alliance. I think it is time that this parliament sat down and asked itself the question: is our engagement in Afghanistan now likely to achieve the objective which has been stated by various people from time to time or is it just a commitment to the US alliance? My view and the Greens view is that we need a date—as all of those other countries have for their forces—for the withdrawal of our troops. We need to have that debate and set that date as quickly as possible if we are to achieve what we all agree on—that is, that we want to save young Australian lives and that we do not want to lose any more Australian troops in Afghanistan.

I conclude by again expressing to the families of those who have lost their loved ones that this parliament is genuine in its condolence to those families—that we do feel the pain of those losses. But I would urge everyone in this Senate to recognise that every other country has set a date for the withdrawal of its troops, that we are not going to achieve the objectives which were set for our armed intervention in Afghanistan and that the longer we stay the more lives are going to be lost.

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

Particularly as a Queensland senator and as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I extend my deepest condolences to the families of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, who were killed in operations last Saturday. I also express to the seven other soldiers injured in this terrible incident, involving open fire with an automatic weapon, my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

In May of this year I was proud to be part of a delegation as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee that visited Afghanistan and see the good work our troops are doing in that country. What you see at first glance and through the briefings is an appreciation of what our troops are doing—how competent, how proud and how committed they are to seeing that country change. That is the task in Afghanistan that is making a difference. Quite regularly when doing my Building the Education Revolution openings I explain the importance of education. Ten years ago under the Taliban rule there were one million students attending school in Afghanistan—and none of them were girls. The education of girls was prohibited in that country. However, 10 years on, after our involvement and the involvement of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, we have seen that figure turn. We now see six million students attending school and two million of that six million are girls. I never cease to be surprised by the number of parents who come up after I mention that at these education revolution openings and express their appreciation for that information. When the media report on these unfortunate deaths they fail to contribute this sort of information.

That is not the only statistic that is recognised as a result of our involvement in Afghanistan. There are health sector issues such as the lack of basic health cover. Under the Taliban, less than 10 per cent of the population had access to basic health services. Today that figure has increased to about 85 per cent. Furthermore, 39,000 community based infrastructure projects have been identified, including wells, clinics and roads. Almost 10,000 kilometres of roads have been constructed. These projects not only provide the Afghanistan public and communities with new infrastructure but also are sources of employment. We were advised of opportunities where Afghanis are being provided with basic building capabilities so they can assist with the construction of these infrastructure facilities or can assist in the construction of simple buildings. Also, 10 million people can now access telecommunications—500 times more than the 20,000 in 2001.

We recognise in this chamber these three deaths, bringing the total now to 32 of our brave defence personnel who have given their lives in Afghanistan. We appreciate what they have so proudly done in Afghanistan but we must also put on record our appreciation for their families. The grieving they must go through when these announcements are made is beyond comprehension. We owe it those who have fallen and have been injured to continue this mission in Afghanistan. We must finish what we set out to do. We must do that so that their sacrifices are not in vain. Quite often as I visit military bases around our country men and women approach me and the committee and explain their commitment to ensuring that their losses are not in vain. In fact, many defence personnel approach me eagerly wishing to travel to Afghanistan to contribute alongside their mates to make sure that we bring an end to this safe haven for the training of terrorists. To those who are currently serving in Afghanistan, thank you—you are making a huge difference to the lives of those who are not yet able to help themselves. Your contribution will ensure that innocent men and women and children are able to enjoy democratic rights as we do and ensure that Afghanistan can stand on its own two feet. Please know that you have the confidence of the Australian people behind you when we raise these matters in the Australian parliament.

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

I welcome this opportunity to speak about our commitment to Afghanistan. This debate is taking place at a time when all Australians are feeling the shock and distress at the news yesterday that we had sustained three more fatalities. I begin my remarks by adding my condolences for the families and comrades of these three fine Australians, Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin. I feel their loss deeply, as I know all other senators do.

Nevertheless, I cannot accept the proposition that we should immediately withdraw our forces from Afghanistan. The fact that our mission has cost the lives of 32 Australians does not lead me to the view that we should get out. Instead, it strengthens my resolve that we should stay until we have completed our mission. Losing the lives of Australian soldiers is a terrible thing. To lose them while failing to achieve the objectives for which they fought would be an even worse thing. It would be a betrayal of their commitment, their idealism and their enthusiasm for the mission. Australian volunteers join our defence forces out of high ideals, not because they want a safe or an easy life. When they are willing to put their lives at risk we must support them in achieving their mission and not undermine them.

Let me remind the Senate what our mission in Afghanistan is. It is twofold. Firstly, it is to protect our own national security by ensuring that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for the training and the controlling of terrorists, as it was previously under the Taliban regime. When we remember the deaths of Australia's soldiers in Afghanistan, let us also remember the Australians who were killed in 9-11 by terrorists under the command of Osama bin Laden, based in Afghanistan and operating with the protection of the Taliban regime. Let us also remember the Bali bombing—again a dreadful event for Australia and again an event perpetrated by terrorists trained and organised, at least in part, in Afghanistan. Secondly, it is to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used in this way, and that means we must permanently free the Afghanistan people from the grip of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That not only requires militarily defeating the insurgency; it requires helping the Afghan people build a state, an army and a civil society capable of defending itself against such forces in the future. No-one ever promised that these would be easy things to do. We have known from the start that this would be a long, difficult and dangerous mission. Both the previous government and this government have always been clear and steely-eyed about that. We knew that there would be casualties, defeats and setbacks such as the terrible incident we learned of yesterday. Because this mission is difficult and because it is long are not reasons to abandon it. We have a duty to the Australian people, we have a duty to the 29 million Afghan people and we have a duty to the 32 Australians who have given their lives to see this mission through.

Let me remind the Senate that our presence in Afghanistan has a firm base in international law. The International Security Assistance Force, of which our forces are a part, was established by a resolution of the UN Security Council. We are in Afghanistan because the international community has authorised us to be there and because the Afghan people want us to be there. I completely reject the assertion that we are making no progress in Afghanistan or that our mission cannot be brought to a successful conclusion. The security situation in Afghanistan is still precarious, but it is vastly better than it was just a few short years ago. Not many people realise that the insurgency is now largely confined to about a dozen southern provinces and that most of northern and eastern Afghanistan is at peace. That is why five million Afghan refugees have been able to return to their homes. Even in its southern heartland, the insurgency is now on the defensive and that is why we have seen in recent times the insurgents resorting to terrorist tactics such as bombings and high-profile assassinations. But we should be clear: these are the tactics of weakness and desperation rather than the tactics of strength and self-confidence.

Politically, a constitutional government has been established in Afghanistan and an elected President and parliament brought into being. Like all senators, I have been disappointed by the evidence of corruption and election rigging that has surrounded the government and the parliament in recent years. But I have no doubt that even this very imperfect form of democracy is vastly preferable to the barbaric regimes which preceded it. Afghanistan was never going to become another Switzerland nor an example of fine Jeffersonian democracy in the short term. But at least now it is a country in which people are not arbitrarily executed or denied the most basic of political, social and religious freedoms.

On the social and economic fronts, Afghanistan has made enormous gains over the past decade—a fact, sadly, seldom reported on in our media. Economic growth has been dramatic. In 2009-10, according to the World Bank, it was an astonishing 22 per cent. Six million Afghan children, including two million girls, are now enrolled in schools, colleges and universities—the highest rate in the country's history. For the first time Afghan women hold public office. For the first time Afghanistan has a free press. Access to health care, particularly for women and children, has been dramatically improved. In short, this has been the longest period of sustained social and economic progress in all of Afghanistan's long and sorry modern history. Australia has made a significant contribution to that achievement and that is something every Australian should be very proud of.

The men and women of the ADF know why they are in Afghanistan. They believe in their mission and they know they have achieved a great deal. Now they are keen to complete the task that the government has given them. Despite the pain we all feel at moments like this, we should support them in that aspiration. We all want to get our service men and women out of harm's way as soon as possible. Of course it would be impossible for us to feel anything else. But to abandon our mission now would dishonour the sacrifices they have made and thus dishonour us all.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my condolences to those of my colleagues on all sides of the chamber concerning the horror that occurred on the weekend and to pay my respects to the three fallen Australians whose sacrifice is appreciated by all of us. Also to the Afghan interpreter, who was killed, and the many who were terribly injured, our thoughts are with them and their families. It is worth noting in passing, with a sense of sadness, that we do not speak to the names of each of Australia's fallen troops now because there are so many. We stand in silence in acknowledgement of their sacrifice but simply do not have time as a parliament to speak to them all as we used to—32 in a decade and a third of them fallen in only the last 12 months. If there has been such progress, if things look as wonderful on the ground as Senator Feeney has been describing, it appears that the violence that our troops have been exposed to is only getting worse.

More than 2,700 coalition dead has been the cost in lives of this war, and an uncounted number of Afghan civilian deaths. If this parliament stood in silence momentarily and acknowledged the civilian loss of life in Afghanistan, we would not have time to conduct any business at all. The estimate over the last four years is that nearly 9,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in the conflict, with civilian deaths increasing each year. It is these profoundly disturbing numbers of civilian deaths that I think give the lie to the picture that is being painted that we are in this struggle for the long haul, that all we need to do is stay the course and eventually there will be some kind of happy ending, and that we will be able to depart the country with some form of democracy in place.

Tell the truth. Tell the Australian people the truth. Why is it so difficult to even have these issues debated in the Australian parliament? We would not have even had a mature debate in this parliament if Senator Brown had not got that into the agreement with the Gillard government last August. Tell the truth as to why after a decade in this quagmire there is now the strongest opposition to this war by the Australian people. A recent Essential Media poll showed that 64 per cent of Australians think that troops should withdraw—that is up from 56 per cent this March and just under half about this time last year. This is now a profoundly unpopular war.

It is justified, as we heard to some degree from some of the previous speakers, that this has been a great cause for the emancipation of women. A June 2011 Trust Law report by the Thomas Reuters Foundation found that violence, dismal health care and brutal poverty make Afghanistan the world's most dangerous country for women. After a 10-year occupation, Afghanistan has emerged as the most dangerous country for women overall and the worst in three of the six risk categories—health, non-sexual violence and lack of access to economic resources. So tell us the truth, government spokespeople and opposition spokespeople, who stand up in here and tell us that things will be fine if we simply toe the line. What if that is not true? German General Kujat told the German Daily in July 2011:

The mission fulfilled the political aim of showing solidarity with United States, but if you measure progress against the goal of stabilising a country and a region, then the mission has failed.

There has been no such honesty from Australian policymakers. We catch a glimpse, of course, of how this war is really seen in the higher levels of the United States government—again thanks to the huge release of US State Department diplomatic cables by the audacious organisation WikiLeaks. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who served in Afghanistan as a three-star general, at the end of a 9 October cable marked 'confidential' said:

One of our major challenges in Afghanistan is how to fight corruption and connect people to the government, and their key government officials are themselves corrupt.

In another cable, quoted in Bob Woodward's book on the war behind the scenes, O'Bama's War, Eikenberry said:

Right now we're dealing with an extraordinarily corrupt government.

These are our partners. That underscores the tragedy of the events we saw over the weekend. Senator Faulkner says that we are there at the invitation of the Afghan government; we are there at the invitation of the government of the United States. Let us be absolutely clear about why we are there. This is the only time in its history that the ANZUS Treaty has been invoked. Prime Minister Howard, without recourse to parliament, put us into that war, took us directly into that conflict. That, I think, tells us more than anything else.

  The debate in Australia is bland, uninformative and superficial compared with the depth of the debate which has occurred in the many other countries Senator Milne outlined whose troops have been withdrawn. The debate has been had, the facts were put on the table, a deadline was set and then the troops were drawn down. There has been no such debate here in parliament. There has been this strange, shallow, bipartisan willingness to tug the forelock and carry on. And not a single parliamentarian in this place, unless you happen to have a seat in cabinet, has the ability to do anything about it because this parliament has never granted itself the so-called 'war power', the ability to sign off on troop deployments and then to call them home. These are not military decisions; these are deeply diplomatic and political decisions which, as parliamentarians, the people who come into this chamber to discuss the matter have absolutely no power to do anything about. Senator Faulkner, as a former serving defence minister, attended funerals and told this very chamber of the tragic and gruesome updates of the conflict he had tried to manage.

  This matter has been reserved for the executive. There is still this stale, bipartisan consensus, unlike our partner countries and most other countries which we consider to be our peers, where that power has been devolved from the executive to at least give some say to the parliament—including Westminster and the United States congress, but no such luck here in Australia. So parliamentarians will file in here and express ongoing confidence and support for the war knowing full well that, even if they disagree, there would be absolutely nothing they could do about it.

  We can come in here and conduct a debate, trying to put the facts on the table, but in fact it is the Prime Minister's call. We saw that most tragically—even more tragically than the incident we are debating now—in the war in Iraq, where the executive, premised on a lie and against the will of the vast majority of Australian people and arguably against international legal opinion, took us to war in Iraq, which resulted in enormous civilian, military and resource costs.

  So when will the debate finally come to parliament? We can sit down now, having had a say, perhaps feeling a little better that we have got a few things off our chests and expressed our support for the people we have put in harm's way, but what can we actually do about it in this parliament? It is time the debate in Australia got some maturity about it. Let us hear from the people who have served on the front line, but let us also hear from the Afghan people. People in here claim that we are wanted there, that we are there at the invitation of the Afghan government. Afghanistan is being run somewhere on the spectrum between a barely functioning new democracy and an organised crime syndicate. These are the people we have signed up to as our partners in Afghanistan. We owe it to the people we have put in harm's way not to wait for a quiet patch when the attention has gone away, with full respect to the people who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and to ask the questions: why are we there, do we need to be there, how long are we planning on being there, what are the conditions we would call a success and at what point will we say that our work there is done?

In the piece quoted by Senator Milne, it is understood that perhaps within months of a withdrawal—this is from one of the people Professor Hugh White quotes—it may well be that the corrupt government which is being propped up at the moment would not last a matter of months. At what point do we think it would last? When will it be on its feet? Do we need to be there for another decade? These questions need to be asked and they are simply not being asked because of the stale, bipartisan consensus that we will soldier on until the United States government tells us we can go. Surely we can do better than that. Question put:

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

The Senate divided. [17:18]

(Acting Deputy President—Senator Back)

Question negatived.