House debates

Tuesday, 13 June 2006

East Timor

Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the House take note of the statements.

8:08 pm

Photo of Robert McClellandRobert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion, which was referred here at the request of my colleague the member for Cowan, and I recognise his contribution to this matter. Labor fully supports the deployment of troops to East Timor. Restoring law and order in that country is obviously vital to that country’s security, but it is also vital to our regional security. Experience has shown time and time again that a failed state—or indeed a failing state—can become a haven for all kinds of criminal activity; certainly the drug trade and potentially terrorist activity, which could affect Australians in our region and on our soil. So, unquestionably, the work of our troops is fundamentally in the interests of our own national security as well as that of the East Timorese.

Currently, some 2,600 members of the ADF are deployed in the operations in East Timor. Of course, our thoughts are with them. We obviously express our gratitude for their contribution, but we must also acknowledge—and, in fairness, the minister does acknowledge—the sacrifice made by their families during their absence and the families’ anxieties for the safety of our serving men and women.

The Labor Party goes so far as to say that the contribution that is being made by our troops in East Timor should be regarded at the highest level in terms of both our national security and the risk that they are facing. They may not be facing the prospect of a car bomb explosion, as with the technologies that exist in the terrorist organisations and the insurgencies in Iraq, but chasing what are basically hoodlums armed with machetes, clubs and knives down streets, wrestling them to the ground, disarming them and detaining them is, we believe, in no way, shape or form anything other than bravery at its highest.

The contribution of our troops should be recognised by classifying their service as warlike service. This will mean additional remuneration for them—some small recompense—for the risk they are taking and the fact that they are living away from their families in hardship, but, most significantly, it will also give them appropriate recognition by way of entitling them to receipt of the Australian Active Service Medal. We note that one of the categories for determining whether service is warlike service is the risk of casualty. In that context, we note that the Prime Minister, in the House of Representatives on 25 May, said:

... we must not walk away from the possibility that casualties could be suffered by the forces that will go to East Timor.

We know that the travel advice to Australians is that they should avoid East Timor, that the situation is dangerous and that it could change quickly without notice. Indeed, we note that the Prime Minister, in public commentary on the issue, has said that the very uncertainty of the violence in East Timor and the fact that there is no immediately identifiable adversary in many ways makes the present task more dangerous than that faced by our troops as part of the INTERFET operation between 1999 and 2002.

There is no question that the failure to classify the service as warlike service has affected the morale of our troops. That has been reported in the media and it has come through to my office first-hand, at least through the filters of immediate family members who express real concern for their son, daughter, husband or boyfriend serving in East Timor. There is no question that it has significantly affected the morale of our troops in the circumstances in East Timor, where we are requiring them to unquestionably engage in risky operations and experience hardship.

We believe that the wrong decision has been made from the point of view of recognising the value of the service, but it is also the wrong decision from the point of view of the recruitment and retention crisis that is facing our armed services. What example does it show to people who are contemplating whether or not to stay in the armed services if the risk that they are taking is not properly recognised? What message does it send to young Australians thinking of joining the ADF if they see a situation where our troops are placing themselves at risk and are not having that properly recognised?

Moving on to the operation itself, our troops, as always, do an outstanding job in peacekeeping. The ability of Australian troops to interact with the local community is a trait that is second to none, and we are prized around the world for that. The ADF themselves have acknowledged, however, that, in terms of restoring civil order and preventing riotous behaviour, perhaps their skill set and equipment are not the best available. In that context, we note that Australia has a military police battalion with trained personnel and equipment for ‘population protection and control’—in other words, riot and crowd control. This asset was not deployed to Timor, nor was it deployed to the Solomon Islands during recent unrest there.

Indeed, I note with respect to the Solomon Islands that the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty—and I do not want to verbal him; he is an honest and sincere man and somewhat deserving to be regarded in the hero category in modern Australian times, so I would not dare verbal him—has suggested that our troops and indeed the police officers serving in the Solomons perhaps did not have enough equipment to adequately deal with the recent rioting that we saw there. Yet the facts of the matter are that Australia does have trained military police personnel available with riot equipment. Essentially, that equipment is sitting in stores in MP units around Australia.

I think we as a nation have to confront the reality that we will be engaged in the next decade more and more in restoring civil order in states that are struggling or failing, or perhaps trying to restore order in a failed state. I think we need to look carefully at developing this skill set. The skill set that our military police have may well be a base upon which to build that skill set. In that context, I understand that the military police battalion receives similar crowd and riot control training to that the Victorian police receive. Again, something that perhaps we need to look at as a nation is having a readily deployable force that is capable and equipped to handle the riotous behaviour that we have seen in East Timor.

The next and final issue that I want to focus on is in the context of a motion that I recognised as paying respect to and recognising the contribution made by our troops. It must be said, however, that it is regrettable that we are faced with this situation. Our troops are now in a situation of risk in East Timor, attempting to restore law and order. We need to ask ourselves objectively whether the course of action that has occurred there should have occurred there. In that context, it has been argued that Australia withdrew too quickly from the INTERFET operation. The withdrawal commenced in May 2002 and moved on more quickly after that. I note that, in an article in the Australian on 10 June, Dennis Shanahan commented:

In early 2004, months before the May 20 deadline to depart, East Timor’s Foreign Minister Jose Ramos Horta told The Weekend Australian’s national security editor Patrick Walters in Dili that he wanted a company-sized Australian combat team to remain beyond the deadline.

“That essentially would be a psychological element and work as a deterrent,” Ramos Horta said then. Ramos Horta’s main concern was the need to maintain national stability and the consolidation of the new Government in Dili. East Timor was fragile. The civil service administration and ruling institutions, notably the judiciary, were in their infancy.

It is all very well to be wise with hindsight, but there were clearly indications that East Timor did not have the security and capability in terms of its institutions to maintain the sort of civil order that is the fundamental basis upon which democracies function. Indeed, I note that, in December 2004, Ramos Horta said that assistance was required because the country’s defence and police forces were still very fragile. But those concerns were essentially dismissed, with Australia’s foreign minister, Alexander Downer, saying that the requests were essentially for a security blanket for East Timor.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, suggested in 2005 that Australia, in the circumstances, might like to—and it would be desirable for it to do so—continue the additional troop presence until May of this year, rather than withdraw, as did occur in 2005. In retrospect, again, that may well have prevented the dispute that led to the dismissal of the dissident members of the East Timor armed forces in February of this year and may well have prevented the civil strife that we are now seeing. In many respects, the decision for early withdrawal may well have been penny wise but certainly has been pound foolish.

The second issue that I wish to raise, and that I think is important, is whether the training we provided to the East Timorese defence and police forces was adequate. I note that the Bulletin, in an article of 6 June, raised that question, publishing allegedly secret documentation suggesting that as early as 2001 it was recognised that criminal elements could infiltrate the East Timorese defence forces and that there was a prospect that the former guerilla fighting base would fracture along ethnic and geographic lines. That was as early as 2001. Despite that, there was no real concerted endeavour to provide training to develop a unified defence force. Indeed, in 2002 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute reported on East Timor’s ‘pressing internal security and law and order problems’, stating that:

Australia’s current program of aid for East Timor is doing little to help ...

ASPI indicated that the East Timorese defence force had limited capabilities and no clear role in addressing those security problems. Australia’s Department of Defence was described as ‘not addressing East Timor’s most urgent security needs’.

With the benefit of hindsight we can all be wise, but these were expert bodies saying at the time that we were not doing enough to develop a unified, coherent defence force, a security force, that was capable of preventing civil disorder from emerging in East Timor. With the benefit of hindsight that clearly has been the case. We should examine, completely dispassionately and objectively, what went wrong. We must recognise it and we must address it. The reality is that within the next decade in our region we will inevitably face more East Timors. I note that Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, who is in the chair, warned a number of years ago of emerging problems in the Solomon Islands. If they had been addressed effectively at an early date, arguably the resources that we have put into RAMSI would not have been required.

These are issues that we need to address. We need to find out what went wrong with our strategy in East Timor and how we address that not only for the sake of the East Timorese people but also from the point of view of attending to similar issues that may arise in our region. Having said that, I stress that obviously the contribution of our troops is exceptional, as it always is. The Australian Labor Party fully support the troops and the work that they are doing. We think it should be completely recognised at its highest level by categorising the service as being in the nature of warlike service.

8:23 pm

Photo of Michael KeenanMichael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to make a positive contribution about the commitment of Australian troops to East Timor. I want to take issue with a couple of points that the member for Barton raised. I am the first to acknowledge that he is a member of the opposition team who is very highly respected on all sides of the House. The main problem with his contribution is that it is made with the wisdom of hindsight. I think that nitpicking about what the Australian government has done is a mistake because it takes the focus of the blame away from where it lies at the moment.

We need to be realistic when we assess the current situation. When we are, we can see that the vast majority of the blame for the situation in East Timor must lie with the East Timorese administration. It is a mistake for us to go back and nitpick about what Australia has done. Australia’s contribution to that fledgling nation has been tremendous. We need to focus on where administrative errors have been made, and I do not believe that they were made by the Australian government.

Secondly, on the issue of warlike service, I know that it would be almost impossible for an opposition not to take that cheap shot. But as we all know the reality is that the ADF are making an assessment of the degree of risk that Australian service personnel will face. Objectively and realistically, no-one would say that the troops serving in East Timor face the same degree of risk as our troops who are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. The government must act on advice that it receives from the ADF, and I think it has acted appropriately in this instance. The opposition in its quieter moments will probably acknowledge that.

I, like many Australians, welcomed the rebirth of the independent nation of East Timor. The brutality of Indonesian rule there—particularly under the dictatorship and not so much since Indonesia became a working democracy—was obvious to anyone who took an interest in the situation. I was in the United Kingdom when the Australian troops led the United Nations force into East Timor and as an Australian I was extraordinarily proud of what they did. It was an extraordinary commitment from the Australian government and the Australian people to help this new nation find its feet within the international community. I am therefore particularly disappointed that a situation has come to pass such that Australian troops, along with other international troops from Malaysia, New Zealand and Portugal, need to go back into that country to restore order.

As I said, I am extraordinarily proud of the role that our armed forces have played there. Once again, Australians are putting themselves on the line to protect the freedom of others. The ADF are a magnificent body of men and women and they have had an enviable record since Federation of serving the Australian people and protecting not just our freedom but the freedom of many others around the world. That is not always the case for armed forces. The armed forces of some countries are used as tools of repression—but never the Australian armed forces, who are always on the side of freedom and on the side of protecting the weak against the strong.

It is a solemn responsibility when the Australian government commits those troops to an international conflict where there is inevitably danger, but it would have been inconceivable for Australia to walk away from our responsibilities to the people of East Timor in this circumstance. Thus, on 24 May, once the government had received a formal request from the government of East Timor for military assistance, our troops were dispatched to restore security, confidence and peace. That request was very importantly signed by the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House, which showed that all areas of the East Timorese government welcomed the Australian intervention. We responded by sending a battalion group of approximately 1,300 personnel.

It is worth noting that Australia was in a position to respond so quickly because the government had taken a decision earlier on in May to pre-deploy our forces into a state of readiness where they could respond to any request from the East Timorese. Given that the situation deteriorated so quickly, it was extraordinarily important that Australia was in the position to respond in the way that it did. The fact that the government took that decision in conjunction with the ADF was largely responsible for us being in that position.

Our actions responded to what was a marked deterioration in the security situation in East Timor, particularly in and around the capital, Dili. There was some initial rioting at the end of May, and then there was an outbreak of sustained fighting between elements of the East Timorese military and a breakaway rebel group. Anyone who was watching the situation saw how the violence escalated markedly. The most shocking violence was the massacre of the East Timorese policemen after they had surrendered and were being granted safe passage under the auspices of the United Nations force there.

One of the ADF’s first tasks when it arrived in Dili was to secure the airport and to quickly restore order in the capital. Initially, a force of 150 commandos, supported by Black Hawk helicopters, was dispatched. The second objective was to provide the safe withdrawal of Australian civilians in and around Dili. As of 24 May, over 650 Australian civilians were registered with our mission in East Timor, but it is estimated that there were approximately 800 Australians living there. Other objectives of the ADF included facilitating the evacuation of other foreign nationals as was appropriate and necessary, stabilising the situation and facilitating the concentration of various conflicting groups into safe and secure locations, auditing and accounting for the location of weapons that belonged to each group and creating a secure environment for the conduct of a successful dialogue to resolve the current crisis. The duration of the support that has been offered by the ADF is going to be the subject of further consultation and negotiation and will depend on the events as they take place on the ground.

The Australian government has a firm view that respect for democracy and the rule of law is crucial to any sustainable resolution of the current situation. We must always remember—and I think this has been forgotten by some people participating in the debate—that ultimately everything that happens in Timor is the responsibility of the East Timorese government. We must never forget that when there are calls for Australia to do more or to act in a certain way we can only do so at the request of the East Timorese government.

Our military involvement in East Timor reflects the belief that Australia, as a very large, peaceful and prosperous country, has a special responsibility to ensure order and peace throughout the region. In that way, these actions are very much in our own interests because we also do not want to live in a region of failed states. That would, of course, create substantial problems for our national interests and, if left unchecked, could be a great danger to Australia. Whether it be East Timor, Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands, it is vitally important that all our neighbours accept responsibility for restoring peace and improving governance within their own countries. Reducing corruption and securing a better future for their people will ultimately come not from Australia but from the governance of those autonomous states. We are in East Timor not to fight the government’s battles but to help the government of East Timor to restore its authority. Our troops are under pressure to combine firmness with diplomacy while observing the constraints and sensitivities of national sovereignty. They are succeeding in this and they have the overwhelming support of the local population.

Restoring security, separating the combatants and confiscating their weapons is ultimately not going to resolve all of the problems. Urgent negotiations within the country’s divided political elite as well as the effective maintenance of law and order by East Timor’s own military and police forces will be needed before East Timor is stabilised in any long-term way. I have nothing but admiration for the forces of the ADF who have undertaken this dangerous mission. It is another fine chapter in the history of the Australian military. I know that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I let them know they have all our hopes for a safe return.

8:33 pm

Photo of Arch BevisArch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | | Hansard source

The deployment of Australian forces to East Timor has the firm support of both sides of the Australian parliament. The Australian Labor Party has fully endorsed the deployment that has taken place. It is very much in Australia’s interests that we see a functioning, effective state of East Timor and indeed of other nations in our region. It is important for their wellbeing that they have the opportunity to develop free societies with improved standards of living. It is also important for Australia’s own interests that we live in a region where countries are able to enjoy prosperity and a good standard of living in a free and open society.

For these and many other reasons it is important that we do what we can to assist East Timor. On this occasion, all of the relevant authorities in East Timor, confronted with a very serious civil unrest situation, requested the involvement of Australian troops and the United Nations. The deployment of Australians is a key part of the international effort in East Timor at the moment. At the outset I want to recognise the enormous talents, the professionalism and capability of the Australian defence men and women. We say that often in this place in debates of this kind. A number of us have had the great pleasure of seeing our defence forces in different roles. Some of us are honoured to have military establishments within our electorates, and I am certainly pleased that one of our largest Army bases is within the electorate of Brisbane. The people involved are people of the highest calibre. But what strikes me in these sorts of deployments is the nearly unique capacity Australians have to deal with situations in a low-key, disarming manner. In areas of civil unrest around the world you see military forces who are a bit like fish out of water—they may well be trained to conduct a battlefield activity, a conventional warlike activity in a conventional warlike environment yet often have difficulty coping with the rigours and uniqueness of civil unrest situations. But something in the Australian nature seems to equip our men and women in the services with a rare talent in that respect.

We have seen it on display in the last couple of weeks, and we saw it on display in the first deployment to East Timor a couple of years ago. I well recall the situation where unhappy crowds, gathered waiting for a food distribution that had not arrived, were getting out of hand. The scene could very easily have become an ugly, violent situation. It was brought under control by an Australian Army corporal who decided to get up on the stage and start singing. The hundreds of people who were getting very angry and upset decided they would start singing along—and a situation that could have become volatile was immediately disarmed, not by weapons but by smart thinking and that unique characteristic that Australians seem to have on display. It is not a new thing; it is not something that has just been acquired by the men and women of the Defence Force. We have seen it over the years. We saw it when Australian defence forces led the United Nations effort in Cambodia to assist after the terrible atrocities of the Pol Pot regime. A command that was led by an Australian, General John Sanderson, displayed the same degree of effective diplomacy on the streets.

A third example I would cite is the Australian contingent that went to Somalia that, unlike the other contingents there, particularly the Americans, managed to establish a good rapport and relationship with the local community. They established schools and had a local police force and a local judiciary operating. They were respected for their capacity to do those things. It is a rare talent amongst military men and women around the world. We can look to plenty of other examples where environments of civil disobedience and civil unrest have not produced that sort of response from military personnel who, I suspect, in other examples—not in the Australian examples—tend to see resolution of those problems through normal military means. They do not work in this sort of environment. Australians are very good in it. That is one of the reasons I am pleased to see Australia involved significantly in this effort—I think we can actually make a difference.

I am concerned, though, that our troops are given the resources to do the task and that there are sufficient people there to undertake the task. It seems to me from the information that is publicly available that there are insufficient resources presently in East Timor to provide the level of support that is needed to quell the unrest and to enable the rebuilding to commence—the confidence rebuilding as well as the material rebuilding. But the first step is to establish peace and good order so that confidence is re-established. There have been too many reports of ongoing problems not just in Dili but outside of Dili where that unrest continues.

I think there is a very good case for the international community to be looking at increased resources. I say the ‘international community’, because I fear that the Australian defence forces are about as stretched as they can get. I am not sure that the Australian defence forces have great additional capacity to add to the troop numbers that are already in East Timor. But it does, I think, cause us all some worry to see as recently as last week ongoing violence, including against people involved in the political and government processes, in East Timor. Those things should not be happening. We should have international forces there, on the ground, at the request of the authorities of East Timor to maintain order so that those acts of violence—which by some reports are now being targeted at individuals for political reasons—end.

It is not possible to establish law and order—it is certainly not possible to get the political resolution that is the first step on the road to recovery—in East Timor while people who are central to that political recovery are themselves victims of violence. We have not got enough people on the ground. We need more there. I do not think the Australian Defence Force could be asked to stretch itself much thinner than it is at the moment. The Australian government, along with the East Timorese government, should be doing everything it can to seek further assistance from others.

The same problem exists not just with law enforcement and armed forces personnel but also with humanitarian support. Even today there are reports of people who still have no shelter—nowhere to live—in spite of the arrival in the last 24 hours of one of the largest single shipments of humanitarian aid since the crisis occurred. There are far too many people without a place to sleep safely and without the food and clothing they need for basic subsistence.

There does need to be a renewed international effort. Australia has a special responsibility in all of this. We should not simply be content with the effort of our military to be there in significant but, in my view, not sufficient numbers to do the job required. We have an obligation to use our good offices at the United Nations and in a bilateral way with other countries to seek further humanitarian support for East Timor.

I cannot help but take this opportunity to also make some comment about the government’s current position in respect of the serving personnel and whether or not service in East Timor qualifies as warlike service for the benefit of their remuneration. I was surprised when I saw the news that the Minister for Defence and the government had taken the decision that the deployment of Australian troops in East Timor was not warlike and, therefore, the serving personnel would not be receiving the normal additional payments that Australian troops receive on service abroad in warlike situations.

I can remember when the Prime Minister made the announcement—not that long ago—that we were sending troops to East Timor. In that very announcement the Prime Minister said that we should do this, understanding that there may be casualties, that this was a dangerous task these Australian troops were embarking upon. How on earth can the Prime Minister stand before the people of Australia and say that and then tell the very troops that he has just sent to East Timor that they are not in a dangerous environment?

I have to tell you that it does not matter whether it is an Iraqi insurgency bullet or whether it is somebody who is an organised thief or involved in the internal conflict in East Timor who has a knife or a rifle with which to attack an Australian soldier; they have the same effect. What is more, it does not matter whether or not a soldier is actually shot. The fact is that they are living in an environment where that is a real possibility. We have seen on the nightly news regular footage of people in East Timor firing weapons. We have seen houses burnt. We have seen people killed. That is the environment in which Australian troops are operating. Why have we got Australian troops there and not plain-clothed or uniformed police? Because it is a warlike environment. There is massive civil unrest in East Timor. It is bordering on a civil war.

I am not trying to dramatise the situation in East Timor and make it sound worse than it is, but the simple fact is: people have died, and there have been not just small arm weapons but grenades used in the conflict in the last month. We have sent our Australian soldiers into harm’s way to bring order to that place. The Prime Minister knew that and quite properly alerted the Australian people to the likelihood or possibility that Australian lives could be lost. Now, to my amazement, the government, in a penny-pinching exercise, is saying after the event: ‘Well, they’re not on warlike service.’ The government has got that wrong, and it should get it right. The government should, without any further delay, reverse its position in relation to the remuneration of the Australian troops in East Timor and make sure that they are provided with the same recompense as they would be if they were in a warlike environment, because they are under the same threat of injury or death as they would be if they were in one of many other places that have been classified that way.

It is not just Australian soldiers or defence personnel who we have sent to East Timor; we also have members of the Australian Federal Police there. A lot of the work that needs to be done in East Timor is policing, and Australian police are increasingly undertaking these roles. They have a long history of doing these things in hot spots around the world—in the Middle East and Europe. There are a number of deployments that Federal Police have been involved in over decades. Of course, more recently they have been involved in deployments closer to home, in the Pacific. As with our defence personnel, I am deeply concerned that the government has despatched these people without adequate support. I encourage the minister to provide details to the parliament about the support that has been provided to the Federal Police.

We know that when the Federal Police were sent to the Solomon Islands they were not properly equipped. When the riots occurred in the Solomon Islands the Federal Police were required to deal with them without helmets. The government did not actually send sufficient riot helmets for every officer. Why, I do not know. It was not actually a cost restriction; it just seems to me to be one of those bungles. There were not enough helmets and shields for each of the Federal Police officers sent to the Solomon Islands to protect themselves with. As a result of that, Federal Police in the Solomon Islands were injured. I know for a fact one of those Federal Police officers sustained serious head injuries and had to be evacuated from the Solomon Islands back to Australia because the government had not provided him with a helmet.

I hope this time, in East Timor, they do not make the same mistake. I hope this time there is sufficient protective equipment for all of our Federal Police personnel who have been sent to East Timor so that, if they unhappily find themselves in a similar situation, we will not find injuries or deaths of Australian personnel caused by a lack of support from this government. I invite the minister at some point to make a clear, unequivocal statement to the parliament about the support that has been provided to the AFP, which I hope is better in East Timor than it was in the Solomon Islands.

8:48 pm

Photo of Graham EdwardsGraham 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.