Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the defence minister’s plans for an early exit from the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which were discussed in a lead item on today’s ABC News entitled ‘Faulkner hints at early Afghan withdrawal’. Could the Prime Minister explain how this early exit strategy can be reconciled with his own comments on CNN in New York as recently as 21 September, when he said:

… this is a time for all countries of good will, all countries of strong resolve, to keep their shoulder to the wheel.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government’s mission in Afghanistan is clear-cut. The mission is to train an Afghan national army brigade within the province of Oruzgan in order to provide a basis for security, in time to be transferred to the Afghan National Army to provide security in that province. Secondly, it is also to engage in training support for the Afghan National Police, to assist with civil policing functions within that province as well. Our third mission is to assist within capacity building within the provincial administration of Afghanistan, within the province of Oruzgan, so that that provincial administration can in time also assume responsibility for taking on the civil roles within that part of the country. That is our mission statement.

As I have said consistently, Australia’s policy in Afghanistan is to be there for the long haul. Our policy is also to be there to realise that mission statement and, once that mission statement is completed, to withdraw our forces—as you would expect.

I would also contrast that with the position which was taken on Afghanistan by the previous government. The previous government committed to a military operation in Afghanistan, supported by both sides of the chamber, in 2001 following the terrorist attacks in September of that year.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question related to the defence minister’s statement, and the Prime Minister has not addressed himself to Senator Faulkner’s remarks.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will respond to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner’s remarks—that is, those of the defence minister—are entirely consistent with the mission statement that I outlined to the House. It is government policy. And the government’s policy stands in stark contrast to the flip, flop, flap that we saw between 2001 and 2005-06 on the part of those opposite when it came to Afghanistan. I notice the member for Eden-Monaro nods his head, in full knowledge of what actually transpired during that period of time. What actually happened during that period of time was that we had an initial Australian military commitment in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and into 2002, and then mysteriously the Australian Defence Force commitment to Afghanistan reduced to zero.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about how his comments are reconciled with the early exit strategy of the defence minister. He is not addressing that question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the member for Sturt, as I said before, the defence minister’s statements are entirely consistent with the mission statement of the government, which is of the threefold nature that I described before. We have a mission statement. The previous government did not.

Let me return to the policy that we inherited from the previous government on Afghanistan, which was that, after 2001-02, mysteriously in 2003 the Australian Defence Force commitment reduced to zero. When I visited that country myself, I think from memory in 2004, in the company of the member for Bruce, we asked to meet with the representative of the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan at that time. We were told that he was out of the country. There was one Australian Defence Force liaison officer—am I right, member for Bruce?—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely: one.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

who was at that stage located in Kabul. And then throughout 2003-04 we had a slow and steady deterioration in the security circumstances within that country.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister’s rewriting of history may be amusing for him but it is not relevant to the question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the previous government decided to reduce its troop commitment to Afghanistan to zero, in the years 2003-04 and into 2005, it was not to the amusement of our allies. Indeed, the United States and others, I understand, at that time were somewhat concerned at the decision on the part of the Australian government to reduce its troop commitment to zero. So, when it comes to moral lectures on the part of those opposite, in terms of consistency and resolve in our policy and engagement in Afghanistan, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition reflects long and hard (a) on the previous government’s engagement, (b) on the fact that we now have a clear-cut mission statement and (c) that this government is at one with the government of the United States in bringing about the realisation of that mission statement in the province for which we are responsible.