Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to add my voice to the many speakers who have spoken about the conflict in Afghanistan. I do not do so to explore the wrongs and the rights or the ifs and buts of our Australian presence. I have never been a huge fan of the ‘coulda, shoulda, wouldas’. I will leave such esoteric explorations to other speakers.

For the record, and for those keeping score, I fully support our presence and involvement. I honour all of our military personnel and others like the AFP who have made and continue to make a very worthwhile contribution over there. However, I do wish to particularly acknowledge two groups. Firstly, I acknowledge the ADF personnel who have made the supreme sacrifice in the service of their nation during Operation Slipper. As I say their names, I pray for them and their families: Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Gregory Sher, Corporal Matthew Hopkins, Sergeant Brett Till, Private Benjamin Renaudo, Sapper Jacob Moerland, Sapper Darren Smith, Private Timothy Aplin, Private Benjamin Chuck, Private Scott Palmer, Private Nathan Bewes, Trooper Jason Brown, Private Thomas Dale, Private Grant Kirby and Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney. That is a long list—way too long.

The second group I particularly wish to acknowledge is all the ADF personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force. Many previous speakers, including the members for Eden-Monaro and Fadden, spoke eloquently and passionately on behalf of all ADF personnel, and with good reason. But, with complete respect to them, I suggest that they sometimes see such contributions through green eyes. I just want to put my particular blue bias on the record. The RAAF continues to do great work in all areas of Operation Slipper, and I look forward to them continuing their proud traditions.

I believe unshakably in the separation of powers. Western democracies are served well by this convention. Consequently, I believe that it is the purview of the executive, not the parliament, to involve the ADF in military operations. There were many reasons for the Howard government to make this decision earlier this century. It is not that the executive cannot be informed by parliamentary debates, but I just wanted to make it clear that I believe it is the executive’s decision.

There is an argument for suggesting that the Afghanistan intervention was warranted merely because while the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan treated many very poorly—particularly women. Some Taliban believed that women were not allowed to work or to be educated after the age of eight, and up until the age of eight they were only permitted to study the Koran. In some parts of Afghanistan women were not even allowed to be treated by male doctors unless they were accompanied by a male chaperone. People who transgressed, even innocently, faced public flogging and, in too many cases, execution.

It is easy to find documented references to women having a thumb cut off just for wearing nail varnish. In 1999 a mother of seven was executed in a televised display in front of 30,000 spectators in Kabul’s Ghazi Sport Stadium for allegedly murdering her abusive husband. She was also tortured for three years beforehand. There are many cases like this that I could go through.

Human Rights Watch and other international observers, such as Amnesty International, have lots of similar reports of such treatment. In many areas under Taliban control women were subjected to threats, intimidation and violence. Girls’ education was particularly targeted. Women political leaders and activists were attacked and killed with impunity. For example, a female government employee quit her job after receiving a threatening letter—what they call a night letter—in February 2010. This was not before the Taliban were deposed but in February 2010—intimidation still goes on. The night letter said:

We as Taliban warn you to stop working … otherwise we will take your life away. We will kill you in such a harsh way that no woman has so far been killed in that manner. This would become a good lesson for women like you who are working.

This was for doing something as radical as being employed. Another example given is of a 22-year-old working for an American development company who received similar threats by phone but continued to work. In April this year unidentified gunmen shot her dead as she left her office.

The Taliban also imposed the death penalty for homosexuality. Unfortunately, under the regime change there has not been a significant improvement in the lot of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in Afghanistan. Thankfully, it is a slightly better story for women. Education is improving and there do not appear to be as many hangings of women for infringing sharia law. Certainly, Minister O’Connor talked to me about the so-called ‘women’s hill’ in Kabul, where the Taliban used to round up women and hang them as a display, particularly if they did something as bad as being involved in education. But it has not been anywhere near as gruesome of late.

Obviously there are still many troubles and challenges ahead for Afghanistan, but the rule of law is starting to assert itself. I give as an example the courage that is being shown by people in Tarin Kowt. Minister O’Connor mentioned a woman who is currently serving as an officer in the Afghan National Police—and the police there are targeted even more than the Afghan military. Her role there had previously been taken by two other female officers. The first woman to occupy the role had been killed. She was not killed as part of her general policing duties, but deliberately targeted and killed—and killed horribly—by those who did not wish to see an Afghan woman in the workforce, let alone as a serving police officer. This first poor woman was replaced by another female police officer, who then was also threatened and subsequently killed. Minister O’Connor talked about the fact that the third brave woman stood up to take on the role, even though she has also been threatened with death and knows of the dangers that remain. Such courage takes my breath away.

Obviously justice in Afghanistan is a very important prerequisite for progress. To again quote Minister O’Connor:

Without security there can be no flourishing of a civil society. Without freedom of movement there can be no economic development, no access to services, no opportunity to be transformed by education. Without stability, people are denied their fundamental right to participate in social, economic and political life.

Therefore, Australia as a nation based on the rule of law needs to set a good example at every opportunity during our engagement in Afghanistan. Thankfully, this is very easy for our very professional ADF personnel and groups such as the Australian Federal Police, other Australian public servants and even our Australian NGOs—and there are many of them that are involved in Afghanistan.

Whilst the people we send over there are very professional, unfortunately the same cannot be said for all who comment here on their involvement in Afghanistan. I have received a couple of phone calls on this particular topic, and I have made a point of talking to these concerned people. They were mostly returned service personnel. Many phoned up, asking, ‘Why aren’t you intervening in this matter?’ while referring to the three soldiers who have been charged. I then went through my point of view and most people came around to accepting it. I will read from an email from one of my constituents. He says that he is a member of the local RSL and says:

I want to express some views regarding the members of the ADF who are facing charges regarding the deaths of innocent victims in Afghanistan—

I will not say the gentleman’s name, and I am reading selectively from his email—

The government and opposition need to remain at arm’s length from any investigation unless the investigation is deemed flawed.

This is a gentleman who has spent quite a few years in the military. He goes on:

While military personnel do operate under extreme conditions and often in life and death situations, there need to be rules not just to seek to prevent avoidable deaths, particularly among non-combatants, but also to protect the professionalism of the ADF. I will go further and say that irresponsible comments for political gain also have the very prospect of further endangering the lives of our troops from the Taliban, who will use the publicity that some seek from this issue to gain greater support for their murderous cause.

That is just one of the emails I received about this issue. Whilst there is a bit of hysteria out there, it is good to see that there are some common sense approaches, particularly from people who have served overseas.

I intend to make a few points broadly about military justice and then touch on the commentary that followed when the Director of Military Prosecutions announced the charges on 27 September. The primary aim of the law of armed conflict, also known as international humanitarian law, is to protect the victims of armed conflict and to regulate the conduct of hostilities based on a balance between military necessity and humanity. At the heart of the law of armed conflict lies the principle of distinction between the armed forces, who conduct the hostilities on behalf of the parties to an armed conflict, and civilians, who are presumed not to directly participate in hostilities and must be protected against the dangers arising from military operations. Under these international humanitarian laws, the concept of direct participation in hostilities, which refers to conduct which is carried out by civilians, suspends their protection against the dangers arising from military operations. Most notably, for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities civilians may be directly attacked as if they were combatants in those particular circumstances.

Throughout history, humankind has, unfortunately, continually resorted to force to resolve our conflicts, even though there have not been as much conflict in the last 20 or 30 years as in the 40 years before. International law developed within the limitations of the use of force in an attempt to minimise the horror, particularly in response to the conflict of World War II. The doctrine of proportionality requires a response of force to be proportional to the aggression that precipitated such force. This doctrine accepts wartime civilian casualties as unfortunately inevitable, but the doctrine of proportionality requires that civilian casualties inflicted by military strikes not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage gained by the strike. The rules of engagement are specific to the conditions of a particular area of operations, and the actual text of any set of rules of engagement is classified and therefore not publicly available. Obviously you do not want the force you are up against to know what you can and cannot do, so they are always classified.

Consequently, I was quite surprised recently to see the commentary about the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I was not aware that Alan Jones was privy to the rules of engagement for Afghanistan. Thankfully, in Brisbane we do not have Alan Jones, but we do have some of his radio acolytes—‘acolytes’ being spelt ‘aco-lights’—and they have also acted as if they too are privy to the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. I consider that there will be much similar inflammatory comment in the lead-up to this debate, but we need to remember the following. The role of the independent Director of Military Prosecutions came about through recommendations arising from a series of committee inquiries in this particular building, many of which were gravely concerned that military justice was not delivering impartial, rigorous and fair outcomes to members of the ADF. To put it on the record, the Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, is a former deputy coroner from Darwin, a long-time barrister and a mother of two Defence Force personnel. She has served in the Army as a regular soldier and as a reservist since 1983—which, to put it in context, is back before the Wallabies were being coached to their grand slam victory by Alan Jones. She clearly has lots of military experience, and I look forward to her getting on with what must be a very difficult job.

Just to be clear, at the Senate estimates hearings Air Chief Marshal Houston said that the soldiers who are facing the charges are fully entitled to the presumption of innocence and that the Army has gone to unprecedented lengths and will spare no expense to support the soldiers and to make sure that they are properly treated in the system. Many of the people in my electorate have signed a petition calling for the charges to be dropped. As I said, I urge them to consider the implications of what they are advocating. They are urging my parliamentary involvement in an area that is totally unjustified, and I hope that these personal attacks on Brigadier McDade will stop, because they are disgraceful, especially from people who should know better. I refer particularly to an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Alan Jones where the Leader of the Opposition said:

I’m not sure whether we can overturn the decision of an independent prosecutor …

Simply: you should not even consider it. He then goes on to say:

Well, as I said, Alan, I suspect there has been a deep failure by this Government to provide these soldiers with the defence that they are entitled to.

That is rubbish. Then he also went on to say:

… because the last thing that people would want to see is soldiers being stabbed in the back by their own Government and I know a lot of people think that’s what’s happening.

That is completely erroneous and should not have been said. He then went on to say that he was ‘the standard bearer for values and ideals which matter and which are important’. Standard bearer, if you look back, is a term used by the military when they used to put soldiers out front to carry the standard. We do not do it much anymore, but a standard bearer then was someone who was out in front of the force. They were often young boys and often in extreme danger. To be a standard bearer in society now, which is what Mr Abbott claims to be, is different—so I suggest that he go back on that radio show and apologise for what he said about this completely proper process.

I return to that female police officer that I talked about earlier—the one serving in the Afghan National Police in Tarin Kowt, the capital of Oruzgan province—and think about the amount of courage that this woman has shown. I hope that Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, shows similar courage in going back and apologising for the way he treated the prosecutor, Brigadier McDade.

See this speech in context