Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to provide the parliament and the Australian people with an update on the government’s view of the situation in Afghanistan and an assessment of the progress of the international effort to stabilise the war-torn country.

Members will be aware that on 19 February I attended a meeting of defence ministers from the partner countries. Held in Krakow, Poland, it was only the second time an Australian defence minister has participated in such a meeting. The first occurred when I participated in the same forum in Vilnius, Lithuania, in April last year.

Afghanistan remains an enormous challenge and a dangerous place. For the Australian government, the objective of our mission there is quite clear: to ensure that Afghanistan does not, once again, descend into a safe haven and a training ground for terrorist organisations with links to tragic events like the Bali bombing, in which 88 Australians lost their lives and many more were wounded.

The key to achieving that goal is to ensure we do not have a government in Kabul prepared to provide terrorist organisations with those opportunities or, worse, one prepared to sponsor terrorist organisations. Thanks to the work of the international community to bolster the processes of democracy, we currently do not have a government in Afghanistan that is prepared to sponsor or turn a blind eye to terrorism activity in its country. But, unfortunately, nor do we have a government capable, on its own, to enforce the rule of law or capable, without support, of preventing terrorist activity within its own borders.

Of course, there is agreement among the International Security Assistance Force partners that achieving our key objective in Afghanistan will take much more than a military effort alone. Rather, success will require properly resourced and coordinated military, civil and political efforts. The military effort must be at the forefront of eliminating and strategically disrupting the key leaders of those extreme Islamist groups which are determined to destroy the government in Kabul, take back control of the country and return it to a launching pad for their global terror ambitions. Second, it is critical to the elimination of the narcotics trade which funds terror both within and outside Afghanistan. Third, the military campaign is key to the training and development of the Afghan national army—an army which, in the not-too-distant future, will number some 130,000 troops. It is crucial for the future of the country that the Afghan national security forces are able to take care of their own security and enforce their own rule of law.

But the ability and capacity of the local security forces is only one part of that equation. No security force can hope to keep the peace while so many among its population feel marginalised, discriminated against or simply permanently consigned to abject poverty. That is where the civil and political campaigns come into play. In a country so ethnically and tribally diverse as Afghanistan, accommodating the needs of the majority is a challenging task but an absolutely critical one. The evolution of political structures, political relationships and power-sharing arrangements are bound to be slow in a country with Afghanistan’s history. On this front, we need to be patient, flexible and never lose sight of our key objectives. The idea of creating a world best practice Western style democracy overnight in Afghanistan is folly. But creating a functional democracy over time in which people feel empowered and safe is not. It is achievable if we have the collective will.

Our job in Afghanistan is about convincing a strong majority of the population that the economic, social and political model we are offering in partnership with the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is better than that on offer from the Taliban or any other group. That is where the civil effort comes into play: building economic capacity and developing the systems and institutions of good governance. A counter-insurgency campaign is about clearing, holding and building: clearing out and strategically denying the spoilers, holding those gains and building local infrastructure and governance. This infrastructure includes roads, bridges, dams, schools, trade schools and hospitals. On the governance front, it includes a quality public service, a policing system, a justice system and a prisons system all largely free of corruption and coercion.

Of course, we will not achieve these aims without a concerted effort on the regional front. On a daily basis insurgents and their armaments are making their way across the border from their training grounds and safe havens in Pakistan’s frontier provinces. We cannot meet with success while that remains the case. We know that closing the long and porous border is unrealistic so the problem must be fixed at its source. That will take the combined efforts of both the international community and the government of Pakistan. On this front, the newly elected United States President, Barack Obama, has appointed Mr Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy to the region. This commitment, and Mr Holbrooke’s well-recognised skill and insight, will be critical to the effort to meet the challenges in Pakistan, as will the efforts of individual countries, including Australia. As members would be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, was in Pakistan only last week talking with the government and military leadership, urging action and reinforcing our offer to assist where we can—and, of course, the minister has just given the House an update on that visit.

There exists a popular belief in Australia that, because the British and Soviets were militarily unsuccessful in Afghanistan, our own efforts are destined to meet with the same fate. In my view, this conclusion ignores a number of key points. Firstly, we are not fighting against the incumbent government in Afghanistan, we are fighting with it. Secondly, this is not a state-on-state conflict, it is a community of states effort against non-state groups. Thirdly, and very importantly, the people of Afghanistan are tired of war. The majority want peace and security and they want to raise their families in relative prosperity just like we do. ‘They are sick of the fighting. They want peace’—those are not my words, they are the words of Afghanistan’s Defence Minister, General Abdul Rahim Wardak, whom I spoke with at length last week.

Progress in Afghanistan has been all too slow and patchy. The insurgency is tough and resilient and the international community’s efforts have hitherto lacked focus, direction, resources, coordination, collective will and commitment. The question is: will this change? It is changing, but too slowly for Australia’s liking. On the military front, the confusion over the lines of command has been resolved and the United States is about to make an additional troop contribution numbering some 17,000. Importantly, the United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, confirmed to me in Krakow last week that the majority of these troops will go to the south, where, of course, they are most needed, and where we are operating.

One of the very pleasing aspects of the latest additional commitment by the United States is the commitment of an Aviation Combat Brigade, which will put an additional 93 helicopters into southern Afghanistan—that is, more Chinooks and Blackhawk transporters and Apache gunships. They will provide much needed helicopter capacity, reducing aeromedical evacuation times—which I have been concerned about for some time—and providing our troops and the troops of other nations with additional options for movement across the southern provinces. We also welcome recent announcements by France, Germany and Italy that they will increase their troop deployments to Afghanistan. It is also clear that lessons have been learnt in relation to civilian casualties. There is a growing realisation amongst the contributing nations that the hearts and minds of the local population will not be won while innocent civilians continue to be victims of poorly targeted air and other military strikes.

A welcome development in Afghanistan is the establishment of the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. This fund will raise money from partner and non-partner nations to finance both the expansion of the Afghan National Army to 130,000 troops and the training and sustainment of those troops. Again, capacity-building in the Afghan National Army is critical to success in Afghanistan, and Australian troops are playing an important role in this training effort.

Foreign aid is on the increase in Afghanistan. Australia has committed $600 million in aid to Afghanistan since 2001. This has been focused on building the capacity of Afghan government institutions, removing landmines and providing food and healthcare assistance. In addition, the Australian Defence Force has completed a large number of development projects in Oruzgan province that have improved the transport, health, education and law enforcement infrastructure in the province. Other countries are doing likewise in other provinces. All Australia’s development activities are coordinated with those of the international community. In particular, the Australian government works closely with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and its head, Mr Kai Eide, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. All this is encouraging as we approach the presidential elections later this year and the legislature elections next year. Of course, the peaceful and successful conduct of those elections will be important watersheds in the development of Afghanistan’s democracy.

Much has been said of late about the prospect of Australia being asked to do more on the military front in Afghanistan. Again, I can inform the House that the Australian government remains committed to the Afghanistan project and will always consider any reasonable request from our closest and most important ally that is likely to assist in improving and accelerating the pace of success in Afghanistan. As I have also said, the government will carefully, thoroughly and responsibly consider any request that may be forthcoming. The critical test will be whether the task is likely to make a difference in a strategic sense. A second test will be that the task assigned is part of a convincing, broader new plan for greater and faster success in Afghanistan. Further, the Australian government will consider any request in the context of military commitments from other partner countries. Of course, the government would also need to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is acceptable.

Success in Afghanistan is important to global security and the security of Australians and, of course, all of us want to do all we can to prevent Afghanistan from falling back into the hands of those who have no respect for human life and for the rights of women and children in particular. We do not want the people of Afghanistan to again be forced to live in fear and without hope of being lifted out of poverty. The Australian government remains committed to playing an ongoing role in securing that success. I pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are carrying the weight of that commitment on the front line. For their commitment and sacrifices the Australian government and the Australian people are eternally grateful.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Paterson to speak for 13 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Baldwin speaking for a period not exceeding 13 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister pointed out, much has been made recently of the question of committing more Australian troops to the war in Afghanistan. The speculation has not been helped by the government’s failure to articulate a clear and coherent policy on the issue of Afghanistan. Having previously denied that Australia would commit additional troops, today the minister has told the House that the government are committed to the Afghanistan project and will consider a request from the US to increase our deployment to Afghanistan—despite having said, according to the statement in the Weekend Australian on 21 February:

‘At no stage did he indicate he—

speaking about Robert Gates—

would be looking to Australia to do more’

He is further quoted in that article:

‘I’m sure that the US will be looking to NATO partners … to do more rather than turn to non-NATO partners like Australia.’

The government have had well over a year in government and more than six years in opposition to develop an understanding of and a policy on the conflict in Afghanistan, yet it would seem that they have failed to achieve either. The minister has been overseas numerous times in his 15 months in office, with little or no evidence of positive outcomes for Australia’s disposition in Afghanistan. He has met with NATO chiefs on a number of occasions, the most recent occasion being just last week, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. It seems that he lectured the International Stabilisation Assistance Force partners on their need to increase their commitment.

Our 1,100 personnel in Oruzgan province are doing a tremendous job in very difficult circumstances. However, our overall contribution equates to 1.5 per cent of the 70,000 coalition troops. What does it say when the minister calls on the NATO partners to do more yet has never once made a commitment to increase Australia’s contribution to Afghanistan? The words ‘empty rhetoric’ readily spring to mind. Despite not being asked to do anything, the minister has laid out the government’s four-point criteria for considering an increased troop deployment to Afghanistan. He talked about making a strategic difference and about a new, broader plan for greater success and faster progress as though these were easy and readily available. Further to this, the government will consider a request in the context of commitments by other partner countries. And then, almost as an afterthought, the minister added, ‘Of course, the government would also need to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is an acceptable one.’

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously I take offence at the suggestion that I have the safety of the troops as an afterthought. I am extremely offended by that and I insist that the member for Paterson withdraw.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, for expedience, I will withdraw. As an afterthought, the government said, ‘Of course, the government also needs to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is an acceptable one.’ While the coalition does not necessarily object in principle to these criteria of consideration, we do take issue with the government’s order of priority. In fact, the government has it backwards. The level of security for ongoing deployment of our troops must always be the first priority of government. This consideration is not an afterthought to be tacked on at the end of a wish list. By providing this superficial narrative on our current circumstance in Afghanistan—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I asked that the member for Paterson withdraw that accusation. Having done so, he is now repeating the accusation.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear any repeat of the accusation.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not put numbers on any of those conditions, nor were they intended to be in order. He knows that.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening carefully and I did not hear any repeat of the accusation.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, we can only go by the ministerial statement provided to us, and that has them in order from one to four.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hansard will show there are no numbers. Whether you heard the statement or not, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member has repeated a statement he already agreed to withdraw. I am offended by it, and he needs to withdraw again. He should stop using that line.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I was listening carefully. I did not hear a repeat. I will be happy to check the record afterwards. We should rely on the shadow minister. If he feels that he repeated that statement, then he should withdraw.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw if it helps the sensitivities of the minister.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will withdraw without reservation.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw without reservation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having provided a superficial narrative on the current circumstance in Afghanistan, the minister has demonstrated a lack of capacity to formulate a plan that would satisfy the safety of our troops. In the government’s four conditions, the safety of our troops is listed, but obviously it is not as high a priority as the coalition would set. I would suggest that the safety and welfare of our troops should be first-tier concerns of any government.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no, no, no.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is debating, Mr Deputy Speaker, not raising a point of order.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister will resume his seat.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I am the Minister for Defence, and the junior shadow minister has just accused me of having a low regard for the safety of Australian troops in theatre. I once again insist that he withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear those words as you suggest—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not matter whether you heard it or not, with respect. I heard it. I am offended by it. The member is now a repeat offender and he needs to withdraw without condition again.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to the minister that, in this case, the member did not refer to you personally at all.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. I said ‘the government’, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the clear intention—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is just chewing up time.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to chew up your time, mate. You are doing a very good job of it, thanks very much. The clear intention, no matter how the member wants to put it, was to question the priority I put on the safety of our troops in our theatre, and he will withdraw again.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister knows well that I cannot ask for a withdrawal if it is not a personal attack.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the government’s four conditions—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you do not have the call. The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The minister now has the call.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, what was the intention of the statement if it was not intended to reflect on me? Of course it was, and the member should withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I am not here to debate what his intention was; I can only ask for a withdrawal when it is a personal accusation or point.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an article in the Weekend Australian on 21 February 2009—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 75(a) does allow you to direct the member to discontinue his or her speech on the basis of repetition. On this basis, the member opposite has chosen—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on three separate occasions—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat! I will warn the minister.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, standing order 75(a) allows you to take action on the basis of the fact that the member has defied your ruling. You asked him to withdraw the first time he used the words that were offensive. He continues to use them—I am not quite sure why. He should just withdraw and then get on with his speech.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the article in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 21 February—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said there was no point of order. Get the wax out of your ears.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will withdraw that.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the Minister for Defence.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, you seem to misunderstand me. I took offence at what was a very clear reflection—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will remain quiet while the minister is making his point.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I took offence at what was clearly a personal reflection on me on a most serious matter, and you should ask the member to withdraw. He should withdraw unequivocally and we can get on with his speech.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not see the same point as the minister.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on two previous occasions the member for Paterson made a specific allegation with respect to the Minister for Defence and subsequently withdrew without qualification. He then—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

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

Let me finish my first point—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Paterson, sit down.

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

He then made the same allegation on a third occasion but merely did not mention the minister’s name. He has an established pattern of behaviour of making an allegation and then being prepared to withdraw. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should recognise that what the member has done is in line with what he did earlier. In those circumstances, he should withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the same point of order has been—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to the point of order: the member for Paterson did not mention the minister in his speech; he specifically attacked the government. To rule him out of order and require his withdrawal would then prevent anyone in opposition from attacking the government on any point.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will finally rule on this. I have not at any time heard a personal allegation against the minister. On the first point of order, I asked the member to withdraw because there was a belief that something had been said—and I did not pick up those words. To be safe, I asked him to withdraw, which he did. The second time, even though I did not hear a personal allegation, to allow the speech to go on, it was easier to ask the member for Paterson to withdraw again. I have listened very carefully since then, and I have at no time heard any personal allegation against the minister. That is final.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is obvious that the government does not want to hear a point of view on the ministerial statement or its treatment of the men who serve us in Afghanistan. Today, the minister was absolutely rattled. He drew some very long bows—which we will get to a bit later on. He has failed our men in Afghanistan, and today he wants to stand on the high moral ground. I say again: this Labor government has made the safety of our men serving overseas a fourth-order priority. This is the minister who rides around the world thumping his chest, thinking he is dictating to others, but carries no weight at all. When it comes to our men, he is prepared to take shortcuts. I will get to those at a later time, because they have consumed all of the time in this statement.