Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be here today to make a contribution to this debate on our involvement in Afghanistan. I welcome the debate, but I will begin by saying that our Australian troops are heroes. They not only are heroes at home but are respected by allied forces across the globe as the best in the business. They work hard, they act compassionately and professionally and they represent our country with both pride and distinction. Australian troops have put their lives at risk in this conflict. Those fallen are not forgotten, and the 21 soldiers who have paid the highest price in being killed in action in Afghanistan certainly have not been forgotten by this grateful nation. Another 151 have been wounded, predominantly by IEDs. Wearing an armed services uniform is the most honourable and the toughest way to serve your nation. Our troops in Afghanistan have done admirably.

The real question in this debate is: should we be there? I will answer that question with two reasons we should be there. First of all is the ANZUS alliance. Australia is a member of the ANZUS alliance, and proudly so. The alliance has served us well since the Second World War. We have heard other speakers say that the role of the United States in conflict in other areas of the world is not one that they necessarily agree with, but this alliance has served Australia well. In this theatre, in the Southern Hemisphere, the United States is our greatest strategic friend. But we cannot be a friend who turns on and off our affection or, in this case, turns on and off our support to our coalition or alliance partner. As one who has been into the Middle Eastern zone on a military deployment—dare I say with yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper—I will say that we noticed the Americans in action. They do the heavy lifting in these areas.

There is a coalition in Afghanistan. A lot of people in the electorate quite mistakenly think that there are just a few nations involved in this UN force that has been invited to Afghanistan by the Afghan government and sanctioned by the UN. It is not just the United States, it is not just Britain and it is not just Canada and Australia. There are more than 46 nations involved.

I will list some of the countries whose participation might possibly surprise people listening, even those from my electorate. There are about 740 Turkish troops; Georgia contributes 925; Denmark contributes 730; Belgium contributes 575; Bulgaria, a former Eastern bloc country, contributes 540; and the Czech Republic in the same vein contributes 500. I could go on. More than 40 nations contribute to this action. Australia has responsibility in Oruzgan province and we are doing the job exceptionally well.

I was very pleased to note that the Prime Minister, in her contribution to this debate, committed her government to staying the course. Without going to the exact words, she said something to the effect that it could take a decade. Yes, it may well take a decade to achieve the goals of this operation. We are pleased that this debate has fleshed out the real feeling of the Australian government and its representatives about our commitment to this operation.

I know that there are different points of view. On our side of the House, there are different points of view. We have also heard the high profile points of view of the member for Denison and the member for Melbourne on this. I find the Greens policy on this issue very concerning. For example, the Greens believe that we should not be involved in any conflict but should have good faith negotiations instead of a military solution. Can you imagine? The terrorists would laugh their heads off at the idea of us sitting down and having a good faith negotiation with them—them with a Kalashnikov in hand and us with an olive branch. It just does not happen that way. There is a saying that goes, ‘Evil prospers when good men do nothing.’ They rely on us being a soft touch. The Greens policy on this just does not hold up. As part of their policy, the Greens also want us to withdraw from the ANZUS alliance, which would have dangerous implications and ramifications for Australia.

Should we be there? Yes. We are a member of the ANZUS alliance and it is our duty, with the other alliance members, to do our job. The second reason why we should be there is because we need to make sure that Afghanistan does not become a failed state. It was heading towards becoming a failed state when al-Qaeda started using it after the Russians had left due to essentially being defeated. Al-Qaeda decided that it was a good terrorist training ground. That was becoming a concern. We know that 9-11 precipitated strong views on the role of al-Qaeda in terrorist actions all around the world. These sorts of failed states, which were being used as terrorist training grounds, required strong action.

If you think that it does not affect Australia, while Afghanistan is a long way away, the long arm of al-Qaeda reached as close to home as Indonesia in the attacks in Bali in which 88 Australians were killed and in the bombing of our embassies. Last week, our security experts confirmed in a briefing that they are continually monitoring terrorist threats to Australia. Let us not think that because we have not had a terrorist attack on Australian soil that their intentions are not those of ill will.

We are there to help this nation by both training their forces and providing security. Our soldiers are doing a fantastic job in training both the civil police and the military and enabling them to eventually reach self-determination. One of the greatest thing that has happened in Afghanistan—and this is true even though we do not like the fact that there appears to be a good deal of corruption in the leadership and appeared to be corruption in the recent elections—is that they are now trying to head towards a democratic solution rather than a military one or a solution in which the terrorists and the militants take over.

Australia as about 1,550 personnel based in Afghanistan. There are about another 800 deployed within the Middle East. This contribution is one that we are very proud of as a member of a team of 40-plus other nations. Progress in this region is very tenuous. Pakistan has their own security issues with terrorist groups. Somalia is an area of concern for the rest of the world. We have good knowledge of the marshalling of terrorist groups in Yemen. Australia must stand firm by its commitment.

In a recent battle—one that was highlighted because of the emails sent afterwards—a force of about 40 Australian and Afghan troops took on a force of about 80 to 100 Taliban. It was not one of our best victories; it certainly was not a Long Tan type victory, where a small group held off a large group. As the emails have pointed out, our resourcing was not the best that it could have been. We need to address that. There are concerns. I know that there has been much debate on this, so I will not go into it explicitly. One of the things that we cannot rely on is omnipresent American and other air support. We need our own hardware—helicopters et cetera—to make sure that we have the necessary support.

Australian troops are in Oruzgan in both a training and a security role. The only way that we are going to win this war is by winning the hearts and minds of the locals. The hearts and minds of the locals will only be won if we provide them with another way—a better way—of living their lives and operating their communities. We are helping to provide education and health infrastructure. We are helping them with alternative crops to poppies—the poppy seems to be the cash crop of the nation. We are moving them to real agriculture, providing irrigation et cetera so that they can move to alternatives. These are real ways to indicate to the locals that we want to help them move Afghanistan away from being a violent environment.

See this speech in context