Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I want to say firstly that I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister has agreed to have this matter sent to the Main Committee to enable members of parliament to express their support for our troops who have been deployed in what has been described by the Prime Minister himself to be a very dangerous deployment. I do not think our troops should ever be deployed in circumstances like these without members of the parliament being given the opportunity to support or not support that deployment. Certainly this matter being before the Main Committee gives us in parliament an opportunity to support our troops and their families and to let our troops know that we appreciate their courage, discipline, professionalism and the initiative required of them for use in such a deployment. I think the government had no option but to commit our troops in the way that it did, and I have no problem with that. However, I must say that I have a problem with the government having declared this to be non-warlike service.

I listened to the member for Stirling, one of the very few government members who have decided to speak in this debate, accuse Robert McClelland, the ALP spokesperson for defence, of nitpicking and of taking a cheap shot in relation to the government’s decision to declare this to be non-warlike service. Firstly, I do not think Robert McClelland, in what he had to say, nitpicked in any way. He supported the government’s decision to commit the troops. He also supported the troops and their families. However, he did say that he felt the government perhaps should have had a higher priority for the security of our region and of our neighbours in this region. I do not think that is nitpicking; I think that is just good, sound commonsense. I wish that the Australian parliament placed greater focus on the immediate security and other needs of our region and the immediate border protection needs of Australia.

In relation to the decision by the government to declare this service non-warlike, I have read and listened to much of the material in the media that has been expressed since that decision was made. I think it was a bad decision, the wrong decision and a decision that has let down our troops and their families. I believe that, right from the word go, we should have made this a warlike service deployment. Perhaps a review could have been held in four, six or eight weeks, if things had stabilised. But initially the Prime Minister got up and spoke about the possibility of casualties and this being a dangerous deployment, which certainly would not have been lost on the troops or their families—and I think that was a very bad decision of the government. Most state jurisdictions have committed police officers to this deployment and I certainly recognise the very professional service of those police officers. I also recognise that, as they have been deployed in the past and as they are being deployed now, police officers may well find themselves deployed to work side by side with Australian troops more often in the future.

I have mentioned that there was a lot of media focus on the decision to brand this service non-warlike. I turn to one article, printed last Sunday in the Western Australian Sunday Times. It was written by Liam Bartlett. I might say that I have had a few blues with him in the past over differences in attitudes to our troops. But, on this occasion, I congratulate Liam Bartlett and wholly support and endorse the comments that he has made. In an article headed ‘Obscene twist to blood money’, he said:

The prize for question of the year goes to an Australian soldier in Dili who, after being told by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson this week that the Aussies’ service was classified as ‘non-warlike’, asked: “Would that change with the death of one of us?”

Apparently, Minister Nelson did not answer the question but flipped it to the CDF. The article goes on to say:

Trying to find an excuse for nonsensical government cost savings is never easy, but Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston blamed the situation on a 1993 cabinet decision.

That was an unfortunate choice, because that decision resulted in 630 Defence Force personnel who were sent to Rwanda in 1994-95 also being classified as serving in a non-warlike zone. That was a bad decision at that time, and this is equally a bad decision now. The article goes on to say:

Just three months ago, after 10 years of argument, it was overturned. Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson said the classification was “probably not an accurate account of the threat, hardship and danger that faced ADF personnel”.

So, what’s the difference between Rwanda and East Timor? Dili has seen plenty of machetes on the streets, rebels with guns, refugee camps, looters who like to play with fire, and a high degree of difficulty trying to tell the good guys from the bad.

…            …            …

But that only strengthens the argument that East Timor is a volatile scenario that requires armed soldiers to do dangerous work. The Prime Minister said as much in parliament on May 25: “This is a dangerous mission and a dangerous situation and we must not walk away from the possibility that casualties could be suffered by the forces that will go to East Timor.”

The PM was supported in the House of Representatives on the same day by Minister Nelson, who said, “We know that this is going to be a particularly dangerous mission”, and also by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who confirmed the security situation showed “reports of shootings, so there is a good deal of danger there”.

This senior triumvirate of government, by their own admission, sent soldiers to a foreign country that could produce “casualties” and now they want to call it “non-warlike”. Are we really that gullible?

If it was, and is, truly non-warlike, why didn’t these three form a parliamentary delegation and sort it out over a tropical banquet with Messrs Alkitiri, Horta, Gusmao and Reinado?

Perversely enough, Minister Nelson’s trip to inform the soldiers of this belated classification would probably have attracted the usual $300 nightly away-from-home allowance for ministers on parliamentary business—which is double the daily war zone allowance being paid to Aussie soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The effect of the “non-warlike” category takes that payment down to $78.60 a day. So, the Government saves $71.40 a soldier and, with 2,600 in East Timor, that’s a saving of $185,640 for each day this contingent is deployed.

The other thing that really annoyed me was that in the same week that the decision was made on what is non-warlike service, a decision that means that these diggers will receive an amount of around $72 per soldier per day, a decision came through that we as members of the federal parliament would receive additional money for coming to parliament. Our allowance is now $190 per night for being in Canberra. The member for Stirling did not recognise that at all as he set out to criticise what I thought was a very good contribution by Robert McClelland and support the government in its decision to declare this non-warlike service. I really thought that the member for Stirling should have come into this place and shown a bit of support for the service men and women who are deployed up there in East Timor and for their families. I can tell you this: if I had been in the parliament when that decision was made on Rwanda I would not have cared who was in government, I would have damn well ensured that my objections to that appalling decision were listed. I am just sorry that more government members have not had their say in support of our troops over this appalling decision on non-warlike service.

I want to say that these troops are deployed in a situation where they do not know what dangers they will confront. It makes little difference to a member of the ADF whether they are wounded, injured or killed as a result of mob violence or as a result of some sort of explosive device. I think that it is wrong to make a distinction between whether our troops are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq or East Timor. They are all at risk. They are all there doing the duty as set out for them by this government. They are all separated from their families. They are all living and operating in extremely dangerous situations. Every day they require an amount of courage, discipline, professionalism and dedication regardless of whether they are in any of those theatres, and I really think that this government has made a bad blue and it has obviously impacted on the morale of the troops. I would call upon the minister to have another look at this decision that he and members of government have made. This is not a decision made by the bureaucracy; this is a decision made by the Howard government and I think that they need to review it.

Having said that, I know that our people up there, our members of the ADF, will do the job well. They will do it proudly in the best traditions of the military. They will do their job regardless of whether they are paid a warlike or non-warlike benefit. But when they come home and look back at that service and when they know that they have done the duty of this government, what will rankle with them will be that they will not be considered eligible for the Australian Active Service Medal and I think that in itself is an issue that these troops in future years will feel. That is another reason I believe that this government should review its decision. Just remember that these troops went off to East Timor under the heading of a dangerous deployment where even the Prime Minister on making that announcement to the parliament said that we could expect that they might take casualties. They are the circumstances in which a deployment should be termed warlike and I think that this government should meet its responsibility to these troops. I support the comments made by both of the previous speakers from the ALP. I think that they have summed up the arguments. They have summed up our support for the commitment and for the troops and I simply hope that the government might listen to the things that have been said in this committee tonight.

See this speech in context