Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the Prime Minister visited Afghanistan, she attended the military funerals of many Australian soldiers killed in action there. At the request of the then Minister for Defence, I too partook in the funeral arrangements for the first reservist killed in action since World War II, Private Greg Sher. Obviously, he died in Afghanistan. Like the Prime Minister, nothing I have done as an MP has been as difficult as that solemn duty of participating with the Prime Minister in the Sher funeral. I have regarded it as my important duty to stay in contact with his family, his dear parents, Felix and Yvonne, ever since.

My judgment is that most of the families of the fallen service personnel, and certainly most of our troops in theatre, support the continuing mission in Afghanistan. Frankly, it is offensive and patronising to minimise their role by claiming that ‘the views of our enthusiastic diggers and operational level commanders are obviously important but they are only one perspective when it comes to understanding Australia’s strategic interests and the most sensible ways to achieve them’, as the member for Denison did. In the real world there are many top analysts, apart from the leadership of the government and the opposition, who share their views of Australia’s service personnel. I have been a supporter of the Afghanistan commitment since the ANZUS treaty was invoked after 3,000 Americans and 10 Australians, amongst others, were murdered on 11 September 2001. Afghanistan was used as the base for al-Qaeda—which in Arabic actually means ‘the base’—from which the attack on America was organised.

Only someone unfamiliar with members of this House would suggest that we are here robotically following some party orders rather than authentically representing our own views on this issue. For those Johnny-come-latelies, I spoke last year very strongly to condemn the blatant rigging of the presidential election in Afghanistan and the rampant corruption with which the Karzai administration has been associated. Whether it is Karzai’s dubious brother, the Governor of Kandahar, or the disgusting admission in today’s newspapers that his chief of staff accepts brown bags of cash from the theocrats in Iran, many Australians—even those who support the mission—will question whether such expenditure of the blood and treasure of Australians is worth the support of a government that allows such corruption.

For years, we have had to endure the smart alec parrot calls of the former foreign minister, Mr Downer, about cutting and running from Iraq. Now, during this debate, I discover that he agrees with the Greens and in fact told the palaeoconservative weekly, the Spectator:

That goal was achieved. Al-Qaeda was destroyed in Afghanistan.

The member for Denison is even more extreme than Mr Downer. He suggests that the view of Afghanistan as ‘a launching pad for Islamic terrorism is no longer relevant’. That is not the view of Australia’s military chiefs or of the Afghan theatre commander, US General David Petraeus. Our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is more measured. She has said:

… our vital national interests, in preventing Afghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack us and in supporting our ally, do not end with transition. Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists.

The Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, reiterated this more balanced approach when he said:

Terrorism in Afghanistan and in its neighbourhood remains a real threat.

                  …              …              …

Our fundamental goal is to prevent Afghanistan from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

Since 2001, over 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks—in 9-11, Bali, Jakarta and the London bombings. Most of the people who planned and carried out these attacks were trained in Afghanistan, and some of those attacks were planned and funded from Afghanistan. Jemaah Islamiah, the author of the Bali bombings, is the Asian affiliate of al-Qaeda. Many of its operatives were trained in Afghanistan. In fact, among terrorists they are called ‘the Afghanis’, which shows their stature, if that can be called stature.

Time after time, terrorists who have now been jailed for their crimes in Australia have come from Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the attack on Mumbai in 2008. These people have tried to attack Australia. Thankfully, we have laws that have enabled them to be arrested, charged, tried fairly, found guilty and convicted. I am pleased to see that the Victorian Court of Appeal recently confirmed that Mr Benbrika will stay in jail for another 15 years.

It is true is that all of these organisations do not operate solely out of Afghanistan. They have outposts in Somalia, Yemen and the southern Philippines. There is no doubt that Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region is the jihadist ‘terror central’. In contrast to some of the non-experts who minimise the insurgency, top counterinsurgency specialist Australian Colonel David Kilcullen hit the nail on the head on Lateline on 4 October this year. He said:

We’re here because the Taliban pose a threat to regional stability. And in Pakistan we have 100 nuclear weapons, Al-Qaeda headquarters and a very strong Taliban movement, and that’s the threat that we’re really focussing on, that regional threat which could have very significant implications if we fail.

This is their safe haven, their base camp and their chief training area in the south of Afghanistan. If we can deny them the free use of this area, we can prevent them from gaining control of the whole of Afghanistan. That will inflict heavy defeat on them. This is the aim of Australia, the US and the international security force. The idea is for the international security force to let the military surge degrade the Taliban and the al-Qaeda command structure, to stand up the Afghan National Army and police and to build a social network for the Afghan government so that foreign forces can slowly withdraw.

The Afghan government says that it wishes to take security control of the country from 2014. That is the time when the training of the Afghan 4th Brigade—Kandak, as it is called—in Oruzgan province by the Australians will be completed. If, on the other hand, we withdraw ignominiously from Afghanistan it will be a huge victory for the terror network. It will inspire them to new attacks. It will make it easier for them to prepare and mount such attacks. We and our allies may stop suffering casualties on the battlefield, but we have only to look at the Swat Valley in Pakistan, where the Pakistani government prematurely withdrew, to see the descent into Dante’s inferno that would happen if we were to take the advice of some of the people in the House. All police, teachers and social workers had their throats cut; all girls’ schools were blown up. That is what happened when the Taliban took over Swat. There will be more victims of terrorist attacks like those in Bali and Mumbai if al-Qaeda is allowed to re-establish itself in Afghanistan.

We should also remember that although we are fighting in Afghanistan in the interests of our own security, it is not all we are fighting for. There are 28 million people in Afghanistan who over the past nine years have known a greater measure of freedom than ever before in their history. This is particularly true of Afghan women and girls, who were denied the most elementary rights under the Taliban regime and who will suffer if the Taliban return. As my colleague and good friend the member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Mike Kelly, said in his standout speech—the best speech made in this debate—we have achieved much in Afghanistan since 2005 through assisting with the infrastructure of schools, health services and trade-training facilities, as well as through providing security in Orzugan province. In contrast to what the member for Denison suggested, we are providing extremely effective training for the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade. As Dr Kelly pointed out, our mission is to make ourselves eventually redundant, not to create a dependency.

On the ABC’s Lateline, Colonel David Kilcullen echoed Dr Kelly’s words. Speaking on the importance of our training of the 4th Brigade, he said:

… but the way that the combined team Oruzgan has been stood up and in particular the good progress that the Afghan National Army, Kandaks, which our guys are working with, have made, I think has gone a long way to fill that gap.

The member for Denison may have minimised the ADF’s progress in Oruzgan but by contrast Colonel Kilcullen praised the performance of our troops, saying:

The Afghan Army’s actually had some pretty good growth this year and I think we’ve seen that growth translated, particularly in the Australian sector, into greatly improved performance and effectiveness on the part of the guys that our people are training.

The Greens political party have argued that the west cannot deliver democracy in Afghanistan. It is hard to see how they can be so confident as they have neither contradicted reports that they have never requested a briefing on our role in Afghanistan, nor have they been to the country. It is a shame that the Greens political party have not availed themselves of opportunities to go to Afghanistan under the parliamentary defence program over the last few years. Senator Bob Brown is a man whom I admire; he is a person of courage. He once went on the run from Chinese communist authorities in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. I urge him and his political associates to take this issue more seriously. They should stare into the face of Islamist extremism and see if they continue to hold the same view about leaving Afghanistan to these clerico-fascists.

US President, Barack Obama, has stated that the coalition strategy is an approach tied to the ‘core goal of disrupting, dismantling and eventually defeating al-Qaeda and preventing al-Qaeda’s return to safe haven in Afghanistan or Pakistan.’ As the perceptive foreign editor of the Australian, Greg Sheridan, explained of Obama’s strategy on 7 October:

Instead he aims to punch back hard against the Taliban, keep al-Qa’ida from coming back, train the Afghan security forces and give the Afghans a shot at running a half decent government.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan before we have been able to create a situation in which the current government has at least a fighting chance of survival will mean deserting the millions of people for whom we have been able to provide at least some measure of security and freedom over the past nine years. I think this House ought to think carefully before it supports such a step. Dr Kelly, the member for Eden-Monaro, made the salient point:

It never ceases to amaze me that those who are quite rightly passionate in the defence of asylum seekers from Afghanistan are not prepared to extend their compassion to the people who remain. Are not the women and children of Afghanistan deserving of our best efforts to prevent a return to the brutalisation of the Taliban years? The silence of some activists against Islamist extremism shocks me, as this extremism should be total anathema to the agenda of liberals and social democrats.

The House ought to consider how many of those people will eventually arrive at our borders as refugees if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban. The last time the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan there were seven million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and those refugee camps are the source of many of the asylum seekers now trying to reach Australia. If the Taliban returns to power, that trickle of people will become a flood.

The tough-minded, Left orientated author David Burchell, and academic at the University of Western Sydney, said:

When it comes to evil regimes, the Taliban in Afghanistan stands front and centre—

and that the conflict is really—

a primal contest between universal human values and an atavistic medievalism, where the latter is too often winning out over the former because, encased in our cocoon of high minded complacent, and habituated to experiencing the world as a theatre for our private moral dramas, we no longer really care.

In her opening statement on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke of attending the funerals of those who have lost their lives serving our nation there. The Prime Minister went on to quote the great Australian poet James McAuley:

I never shrank with fear

But fought the monsters of the lower world

Clearing a little space, and time, and light

For men to live in peace

I am proud of the tough stance the Prime Minister is taking. I am proud of her supporting our brave men and women fighting on behalf of this nation. I am proud of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, despite all of my doubts about the corrupt government in power there, views that I make very clear to the Afghan ambassador and to the various people that we have access to in this parliament.

Australia squarely confronted the monstrous Taliban, which blew up the Bamiyan Bhuddas, who stood in Afghanistan in respect of another culture for thousands of years; who used a UN sports grounds to flay, then stone to death women; who denied girls education; whose horrifying treatment of minorities were explored in such deeply troubling films as Kandahar and the Kite Runner. I am fully conscious of the fact that this problem can never be solved by Australia alone. I am fully conscious of the fact that our great ally, the United States, has a plan for standing up with the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces, and that we cannot indefinitely invest our people’s lives or our treasure in keeping the conflict in Afghanistan going. But I think the plan that the government has outlined, with the support of the opposition, and with the bipartisan view of most sensible people in this country, is that we ought to give it our best shot. Australia is making a very valuable contribution in Oruzgan province. Our people serving there are doing great credit to this country, and I think that most Australians expect us as politicians to do what the famous Edmund Burke said: not just reflect what public opinion says but we owe the public our judgment. And my judgment is that the policies of this government, supported by the other side, are right in Afghanistan. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the motion to take note as well, and very pleased to follow the member for Melbourne Ports, for whom I have a deal of respect when it comes to these matters—although not everything he commented on in his contribution this afternoon.

I will begin by commending the parliament for the manner in which this debate has taken place in the past week. In the main I think it has shown how we can perform at our best and do what the Australian people expect us to do in this place. While I have not always agreed with the propositions outlined by some members, and the positions put by some members, I think we do those who serve us a great honour by debating this issue in our parliament. In that respect I acknowledge the Prime Minister’s contribution, but in particular I acknowledge the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, who outlined his position in a thoughtful and considered manner.

To debate our ongoing contribution to Afghanistan we need to return to the original purpose of the mission. It was of course a decision taken in the light of the burning wreck of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a blackened field in Pennsylvania. It was to some extent the defining event of our generation. I very well remember sitting at home watching the late news on channel 10 when Sandra Sully, in a somewhat unforgettable way, crossed to the unfolding events in New York in the United States of America. What came next will never leave me, and nor it should—that was the vision of the second plane hitting the second tower.

Australia at that time, under the leadership and the prime ministership of John Howard, took the right decision to immediately indicate to our closest ally that we would stand together. By dint of fortune our Prime Minister was in Washington on that day when these events were occurring around him. He said at a hastily prepared press conference on that day:

… on behalf of all of the Australians here is to say to our American friends, who we love and admire so much, we really feel for you. It is a terrible day. It is a day that recalls the words used by President Roosevelt in 1941—it is a day of infamy that an act of this kind can be made in such an indiscriminate fashion—not upon military assets as was the case in Pearl Harbor but upon innocent civilians; men, women an children going about their daily lives. As I say, words aren’t very adequate but they are a sign that we feel for our American friends. We will stand by them, we will help them, and we will support actions they take to properly retaliate in relation to those acts of bastardry against their citizens and against what they stand for.

What the Prime Minister at that point would not have known was that there were Australians also in those towers who were caught up in the events on that disastrous day.

It is now a matter of history that in the days and weeks that followed the attacks on the United States it became very obvious that those responsible for planning the attacks were based in large part in Afghanistan. The United Nations sanctioned a force that proceeded to invade Afghanistan to rid that country of the masterminds of the attack on the United States, al-Qaeda. The United States rightly demanded that those who harboured Islamic extremist groups like al-Qaeda either turn them over or face the consequences of that action. Al-Qaeda, like other Islamic extremist organisations, exists to do us harm. As the member for Melbourne Ports so rightly outlined, they are not our friends.

A point often forgotten by some in this debate is that Islamic extremists do not attack us because of our friends and because of our alliances; they attack us because of our values. Again history tells us that the original mission, the original purpose of the UN sanctioned force, was difficult but it succeeded in a remarkably short amount of time. The Taliban was quickly overthrown and al-Qaeda’s operational homeland was effectively removed. While this disrupted the substantial terror network, our people unfortunately have still been subjected to the violence and terror practised by these Islamic extremists. We should never forget what happened to Australians in Bali on two occasions and to our embassy in Indonesia and, as the member for Melbourne Ports outlined, to those who suffered in India recently in Mumbai. This is why we fight in this ongoing war on terror.

That brings me to today and the reasons for our ongoing commitment to Afghanistan. The member for Melbourne Ports said, and he is right, that the opposition and the government have a bipartisan commitment, and so we should. The Australian public, and importantly those we ask to serve on our behalf, should be fully informed of what our mission is, especially after nine years of this conflict. I have to say the best description I have read on our mission and its purpose in recent times was from Major-General John Cantwell in an interview conducted by Paul Toohey on 13 October 2010 and reprinted on the Punch website. Major-General Cantwell says, ‘Our mission is very clear: train the Afghans to manage security around the key population areas of Oruzgan.’ The major-general in this very same interview makes the very valid point that the mission has not been well enough explained by either military or political leaders in recent times and therefore we are, as the Leader of the Opposition identified so rightly in his contribution, at real risk of losing the PR war at the very same time as we are making significant steps to winning the real war. This in my view is a significant failure and it does not honour the sacrifice of the 21 brave men who have died in this commitment. If nothing else, this debate should ensure that we do not put these commitments to the recesses of our minds forever and that we constantly reflect on the troops we have committed, the reasons that they are there and what we can do to ensure that they can achieve their mission.

Given this history and given the need for us to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used to harbour and train Islamic extremists, the original purpose of the mission, who seek to do us harm and do our friends harm, what is our plan? I believe we have four distinct options to move forward. The first is a complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, as suggested by some in this debate and some outside this place. I believe this would be a historic mistake. It would give strength to those that we battle. It would strengthen the arm of the Islamic extremists who we continue to fight alongside those with whom we share values. It would be a mistake of historic proportions. Option 2 is for an unending commitment, taking away effective control of Afghanistan from the people of Afghanistan and for us to manage their country. Option 3 is to continue with the status quo.

Option 4, the final one we are left with and I think the most considered option, is to work harder, quicker and more effectively to ensure that we have a sustainable Afghanistan which can protect itself, and ensure that it is never returned to a safe haven for Islamic extremists like al-Qaeda and for the Taliban. I believe our alliance with the United States is the most important alliance that we have. The United States of America is a force for good in the world and it continues to be today, even though it has significant pressures domestically and internationally. It is in our absolute national interest that our alliance with the United States remains strong and that the US remains a force in our region in the coming decades.

To those who suggest, and they have in this debate, that to respect the American alliance is to slavishly follow the Americans’ foreign interest ahead of our own, to suggest that we do not have our own independent foreign policy or our own independent foreign thought, I say that I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. Our national interest drives our foreign policy interest. It always has and it always should. It is in our national interest to stand with our like-minded allies, to stand with those who share our values. The United States is foremost amongst those. That is why we should, together with our coalition allies, increase the pressure on the Afghanistan government to take more responsibility for their own future. They have, as the member for Melbourne Ports identified, thus far been subjected to a great deal of bribery. They have hardly been what you would describe as a model of effective government or one that we can place a great deal of confidence in. However, that must change, and I think the President of the United States, in the recently released book by Bob Woodward, identifies the necessary improvement that needs to occur in Kabul if it is to be possible for us to achieve what we set out to achieve in the first place, which we must remember was to ensure that Afghanistan never becomes a safe haven for those Islamic extremists who have done us so much harm.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, so correctly, in his contribution to the parliament:

Our objective is to allow Afghans to choose what they think is right for them. The Taliban’s objective is to impose what it regards as the one right system. We are prepared to accept choices by the Afghan people that we don’t like. Our key stipulation is merely that Afghanistan should never again become a base for international terrorism.

This is absolutely correct. As flawed as this government in Kabul may be, it is our last best hope.

Our job in Afghanistan is not to defeat the Taliban in the field of conflict. People have rightly pointed out in recent days that that is a mission that is too hard to achieve. Our job is the security of Afghanis and to ensure that they are trained to look after themselves. In recent weeks, leading into this debate, there has been comment made by the editor of the Spectator magazine, Mr Tom Switzer, who suggested last week that we should withdraw. There has been comment made by Mr Greg Sheridan of the Weekend Australian, someone I have a great deal of respect for, that we need to reconsider our objectives in Afghanistan and we need to be looking at the ways that we can more quickly move our forces from that area.

As much as I despise what the Taliban stand for, I accept that political moves are now as important as military moves in trying to end the violence. It is a logical and necessary step forward. There has been much commentary and comment on my predecessor’s article in the Spectator magazine a week ago, where he laid out the reasons these political discussions should occur. In fact, the member for Melbourne Ports also made some comments in his contribution about them. But I do suspect that not everybody had read the full article before making comment on what Alexander Downer was suggesting. Far from suggesting that our forces cut and run, he was suggesting that we ensure that our strategy works to ensure that the original purpose of the mission is successful. His argument is best summed up in this paragraph:

Put simply, the initial military aims in Afghanistan have been achieved. Now is the time for diplomacy and political negotiations. President Karzai has a strong hand. He has the support of the US and its allies and there will be no military withdrawal until the Taliban is prepared to settle for a political solution.

The 21 fine Australians who gave their lives in this conflict should never be forgotten. Lest we forget. I believe we would be dishonouring them by abandoning our mission now. But we would also dishonour them if we continued to accept the status quo.

Many contributors in this place have honoured our troops, their skills, their loyalty and their commitment, and I join with all of those who have done so. I stand by our troops and I support their mission. I undertake to them that I will continue to keep their commitment at the front of my mind and ensure that they are not committed a moment longer than necessary. Our commitment is important and our goals in Afghanistan are important. Our fight against Islamic extremism remains our greatest security challenge and our greatest security threat. Australia must continue to stand with our like minded friends to ensure we win this fight. September 11, Bali and all those who have died around the world at the hands of these fanatics demand we do so.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no doubt that all members speaking in this first debate on our military deployment in Afghanistan will pay tribute to the Australian men and women who are currently serving their country and I join my fellow parliamentarians in expressing the nation’s gratitude to those who put their lives at risk on a daily basis, and especially those who already have paid, or may pay in the future, with their lives on active service. I extend deepest condolences on behalf of the people of central Victoria to the family and friends of those who have already fallen.

It is appropriate that we express our gratitude because as a nation we have not always done so in the past. The disgraceful treatment of our returning servicemen and women during and following the war in Vietnam remains a stain on our country’s history and must never be repeated.

Whether or not the political decision by the government of the day to go to war was a good one or a bad one, the men and women we put in harm’s way have had no say in where they are sent or whether they go. They merely do their duty to their nation. As politicians we carry the ultimate responsibility for strategic decisions about war and we must resist the temptation to cross the boundary and start playing armchair generals, as some on the other side of this House have been doing in recent weeks. Making uninformed calls for additional equipment that is inappropriate and unsuited to the conditions in which our troops are deployed is both reckless and irresponsible. Being able to compete in a triathlon and firing off a few rounds of ammunition on a visit to Oruzgan does not make you a military commander. It is not this parliament’s role to second-guess tactical military decisions. This debate must concentrate on the strategic and political issues.

The fact that this debate is taking place nine years after the first deployment of Australian troops in Afghanistan means we must focus on dealing with the strategic realities that we face today. We cannot go back and change the past. We cannot go back and change the reasons why we became involved in Afghanistan in the first place. The fact is that we are there. We have troops and civilian personnel on the ground today and any decisions that are made about our future involvement must be based on the situation today and that expected to prevail in the future.

Having said that, it is useful to review what has transpired since 2001. Perhaps the first point to make is that there have been two quite different stages to our involvement in Afghanistan. Australia’s commitment began in October 2001 after the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington killed more than 3,000 people, including 10 Australians. Australian special forces joined American, British and other international troops in an intensive campaign against al-Qaeda and those who gave them sanctuary, including the Taliban. By December 2002 the Taliban had fallen and many al-Qaeda operatives had been killed whilst the remainder had fled across the border to Pakistan and our special forces troops had returned home.

In December 2001, Australia also made a commitment to the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, whose United Nations mandate to provide security around Kabul was subsequently extended to cover the entire country. But, unfortunately, this promising start was followed by the distraction of Iraq. The reckless determination of the Bush and Blair administrations, aided and abetted by the former Howard government, to pursue Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction meant operations in Afghanistan were all but ignored and many of the hard won gains on the ground were thrown away. In the context of the campaign against al-Qaeda, the invasion of Iraq must be seen as a strategic blunder, as well as being of doubtful legality. It is something that the Australian Labor Party voted against in this parliament at the time.

By September 2005, the rising insurgency forced members of ISAF to refocus on Afghanistan and Australian special forces were deployed again. ISAF continues to operate under a United Nations mandate, which was renewed earlier this month for a further year. Its strategic objectives are to establish security across the country and then transfer responsibility for security and governance to the Afghan authorities, which will permit a phased withdrawal of the international troops. Since August 2003, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, has assumed responsibility for the leadership of ISAF and Australia now has some 1,550 military personnel in Afghanistan both as part of ISAF and in the special operations task group. This is the largest contribution from any non-NATO member of ISAF. We also have a sizeable civilian presence, including AusAID officials, diplomats and members of the Australian Federal Police.

International terrorist attacks did not begin and end on 11 September 2001. Since then, some 100 Australians have been killed in attacks overseas, including 88 Australians in the Bali bombing of 2002 and four in the second Bali bombing in 2005. Our embassy in Jakarta was bombed in 2004. In each of these cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan. Although no longer the safe haven that it once was, if the current insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed and the international community were to withdraw, then Afghanistan could once again become a base for terrorists. Al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit and indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill would be far greater than it is today. The propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous.

It is in Australia’s national interest that safe havens for terrorists, particularly those in South Asia and the Pacific, are kept to a minimum and their operations disrupted as much as possible. The strategic objective for Australia is clear: to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan. That is why Australia is participating in ISAF with many longstanding friends and allies, including the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Singapore and Korea. The last two are among the Asian countries participating. There are also several Muslim countries involved, including Turkey, Jordan and Malaysia.

Australia’s specific contributions to ISAF include training and mentoring the Afghan National Army’s 4th Brigade to assume responsibility for security in Oruzgan province, building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to perform civil policing and helping improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver core public services and create more income-earning opportunities for its people. As well as supporting this transitional program in Oruzgan, our special forces are still targeting the insurgent network in and around the province, disrupting insurgent operations and supply routes. This is dangerous work for our soldiers and we must expect there to be further casualties and loss of life among our troops.

The government is committed to providing the best protection and support for our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. Over the past 12 months, more than $1.2 billion in funding has been announced for additional force protection measures for Australian personnel, including upgraded body armour and rocket, artillery and mortar protection. I am pleased to note that manufacturers in my electorate are at the forefront of protecting our service men and women. The Bendigo built Thales Bushmaster has time and time again demonstrated its unrivalled capability to protect our troops from gunfire, bombs and improvised explosive devices that would have otherwise resulted in fatalities. Australian Defence Apparel is a world-leading producer of body armour and also supplies more basic items such as combat uniforms. I am extremely proud that Bendigo’s defence manufacturing sector is totally geared to produce vehicles and equipment designed to save lives and not destroy lives—somewhat of a unique situation in Australia today.

I regret that I have to inform the House that this proud record of protecting our troops overseas is now at some risk. I learnt earlier today that Thales Australia, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster in Bendigo, has announced redundancies at its Bendigo plant, largely due to lack of immediate further orders for its world-leading technology from our own Department of Defence. Innovation is the engine that grows our economy and it would be a national tragedy if this country’s knowledge and expertise in protected mobility design and manufacture were lost due to the bureaucratic maze that our Department of Defence operates in. I am quite sure that the governments of Britain and the United States would not let this happen to its defence manufacturers and neither should we. I will have more to say about this matter later when I have more details.

Returning to Afghanistan, we need to be clear that the task we have taken on in that country is not nation building. We are there to support the Afghan people’s transition to a stable government—one that is able to maintain its own national security and protect its own population. I do, however, believe that the UN, including Australia, has been too ambitious, as it was in Iraq. We must accept that we have made promises about democracy, the rule of law and human rights for women and minorities which cannot realistically be delivered in a handful of years to a country without any democratic tradition. Success for the UN and ISAF will therefore have to mean achieving an intermediate state of affairs in Afghanistan that is somewhere between ideal and intolerable.

It may be that the idea of a centralised Afghan democracy is too radical for a country in which central administration has never worked in the past. There are a range of outcomes that the Afghan government and ISAF might find acceptable that are achievable. None of these outcomes are perfect and all would require sacrifice. But a compromise that would allow ISAF to withdraw its troops may have to involve a more inclusive, flexible and decentralised political settlement, perhaps in conjunction with the Taliban in some areas of the country. This should be acceptable to Australia also. After all, we count among our friends many nations that are not democracies. We can surely accommodate another one.

To achieve even a limited strategic objective will require ISAF to remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Australia should remain part of the coalition. There will still be a need for Australians to conduct training and other defence cooperation activities. The civilian led aid and development effort should also continue. We have heard from the Prime Minister that these support, training and development tasks may continue in some form through to the end of this decade at least. In light of this, while my heart may be saying that we should bring our troops home now, my head supports the Prime Minister’s view that we have to stay.

This is the decision I have come to after careful consideration of the available information and not, as the member for Denison suggested in his speech last week, because I have sacrificed my soul for my party’s political self-interest—an accusation I strongly resent. I believe I am representing the views of most in my electorate in light of the two beautiful young women from Bendigo whose lives were so tragically cut short while they were doing nothing but enjoying a holiday in Bali. So I say to the member for Denison: do not come into this House and lecture people about conscience or principle, because I and many others on this side of the House are acting precisely according to our consciences in supporting our nation’s involvement in Afghanistan.

In summary, Afghanistan is a completely different situation to Iraq. Afghanistan has always been a war of self-defence, launched after al-Qaeda’s strikes on September 11, rather than a pre-emptive strike which turned out to be without foundation. It was initiated pursuant to international law under the United Nations Security Council’s mandate and it continues to be supported by key leaders in the international community. Australia has a proud history of supporting the aims and objectives of the United Nations. A unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan would raise questions about our commitment to the UN and to the rule of international law.

While we value the Australia-United States alliance—and I recognise its importance to our national security—I would much rather see the US acting multilaterally under a UN mandate than charging around the world as a lone maverick engaged in its own foreign policy adventures. This is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan, and if we turn our backs on that now, at a time when the US President is trying to steer his country away from ill-advised, unilateral military interventions, we will be playing into the hands of those American hawks who argue that it is always better for the US to act on its own, even in defiance of the United Nations.

Finally, we must not forget that we have moral obligations to Afghans. We should not bolt for the exit because the going gets tougher. We should make sure that when we leave we have discharged our responsibilities to the international community, to our allies and, most importantly, to the people of Afghanistan. In conclusion, I believe that it is in Australia’s national interest to remain part of the United Nations international commitment in Afghanistan.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 19 March 2009 Sergeant Brett Till was killed in Afghanistan. He left behind Bree, his wife, and his two children, Jacob and Taleah. This weekend, on Saturday, we will celebrate the first birthday of Bree and Brett’s only child. Bree contacted me when these speeches debating this matter began. She said—and it is worth repeating for the House:

I appreciate the respect for the fallen, but we stay because we need to stay—not for spite or pride. Risking more loss of life does not make lost lives less painful.

That was the advice of the widow of a soldier fallen in Afghanistan to this House about how we should think about these matters. We need to stay in Afghanistan not to justify the lives lost—we honour those lives and the fact that they were lost—but to complete the task that those who lost their lives made the ultimate sacrifice to complete. This task remains as valid today as it did when the Special Forces Task Force was deployed nine years ago, in October 2001. In this debate we have the opportunity to reaffirm why we need to stay.

Ten years after making his case for international intervention not just in Kosovo but more broadly, as a new doctrine, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair returned to Chicago to reaffirm his case in his post-politics world. He made a plea for patience with this doctrine, and I make a similar plea today in relation to our engagement in Afghanistan. Mr Blair said:

I understand completely the fatigue with an interventionist foreign policy—especially when it involves military action that takes its toll on a nation’s psyche, when we see those who grieve for the fallen in battle. The struggle seems so vast, so complex, so full of layers and intersections that daunt us, that they make us unsure where we start, how we proceed and where and how on earth we end.

As we contemplate our continuing involvement, let us remind ourselves of what Mr Blair had said 10 years before:

Globalisation … is not just economic, it’s also a political and security phenomenon. … We live in a world where isolationism has ceased to have a reason to exist. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we still want to be secure.

He said:

Where we are called upon to fight we have to do it. If we are defeated anywhere, we are at risk of being defeated everywhere.

As Tony Blair more recently argued:

… the struggle in which we are joined today is profound in its danger; requires engagement of a different and more comprehensive kind; and can only be won in the long haul. … We live in an era of interdependence: the idea that if we let a problem fester it will be contained within its boundaries no longer applies … Their problems will become ours.

We are in engaged with our allies in this struggle. We are in Afghanistan to provide stability to a nation in crisis that has endured generations of upheaval and most recently has been brutalised by an oppressive and invasive Taliban regime that harboured al-Qaeda and ignored the fundamental human rights of their own people. We are in Afghanistan to deny a haven to terrorists who spend every waking hour devising and implementing their wicked plans and schemes to destroy everything we hold true as Australians. We are in Afghanistan to enable the nation of Afghanistan to once again govern itself and take charge of its own future, where its own citizens can assure each other of the freedoms we too often take for granted.

These are noble goals; these are worthy goals; these are our goals. They have not become any less important with the difficulty of this task or its duration or because of any frustration we may feel in achieving it. Do these goals represent an achievable purpose? We have no choice. If they are unachievable, we must make them achievable. As Blair also said:

This struggle we face now cannot by defeated be staying out, but by sticking in, abiding by our values, not retreating from them.

We are not responsible for terrorism. It cannot be justified on any grounds. We should be unapologetic in combating it.

But how do we defeat it here in Afghanistan? At a practical level we must understand that we are fundamentally in a battle for governance. In this battle our primary enemy is corruption. The need to increasingly address our attention to civil reforms has been highlighted by numerous experts, including our own Dr David Kilcullen and Peter Leahy from the National Security Institute. US General Petraeus has given positive signals to address greater effort in these areas also since taking up the command.

This is not an argument for greater use of soft versus hard power. To the contrary: the two can and must co-exist in our efforts in Afghanistan, and we must remain equal and true to both. We cannot hope to secure the civil reforms necessary to achieve working governance in Afghanistan without establishing a more secure environment. There are others in this place, and certainly outside, who can better advise how these security objectives can be operationally won, and I will leave it to them. But success will ultimately turn on the reforms to governance that so far frustrate our progress.

Dr Kilcullen argues that the Taliban are outgoverning the Afghani government: ‘They are the ones collecting taxation, running small businesses, having agricultural policies, issuing title deeds and ID cards, even issuing passports in parts of the country.’ Whit Mason, from the University of New South Wales Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law, argued:

Most Afghans crave little more than peace and security from any predator, whether they be criminals, insurgents or corrupt police and officials.

He talked about the modicum of rough justice and security provided by the Taliban and the territories they control. The state, by contrast, he argues, ‘cannot protect civilians against either the Taliban or common criminals. Police often extort money and the judiciary is seen as the most corrupt institution in the country.’ Make no mistake: corruption is the resident evil that denies human beings worldwide their chance of a better life, whether it is the dictator regimes of Africa, the juntas of Burma or the corrupt bureaucracies of Afghanistan.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported in January that Afghanis paid out $2½ billion—almost one quarter of their GDP—in bribes in the previous 12 months. One in two Afghanis had to pay at least one kickback to a public official in the previous year. Transparency International has rated Afghanistan, after Somalia, the second most corrupt country in the world. When I recently met with Afghan asylum seekers in the Curtin detention centre, they told me they had lost confidence in the Karzai government. It is no wonder when initiatives, such as the High Office of Oversight, established by the Karzai government to tackle corruption, was found by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction to suffer from significant gaps, was critically understaffed, lacking in basic skills and experience, and the organisational, external and personal independence required by international standards were not present. The challenge of confronting such corruption is that it becomes cultural and intergenerational. It becomes hard-wired into the DNA of a nation. It is not long before children have to bribe their teachers or be sent from home school, as we know happens in many developing countries in Africa today,

As the UNODC report recommends, Afghanistan does need an independent, fearless and well-funded anticorruption authority. The appointment of governors and district leaders must include a negative corruption pledge. People holding public service positions should disclose their incomes and assets. Administrative procedures must be made more user-friendly and public services made more accessible and service orientated. Full transparency must exist in public procurement, tendering practices and political campaigns. Serious attention needs to be given to salary levels and structures for public officials. Proceeds of crime must be confiscated. Prosecution of corrupt officials must proceed. The chief justice must discipline their judiciary. It cannot be, as the report says, ‘Cheaper to buy a judge than hire a lawyer.’

Despite setbacks, there are examples of progress in these areas and they are listed in the numerous reports put together. It is pleasing to note that Australian forces and civilians are actively engaged in addressing these issues in Afghanistan and Oruzgan province. These include our Federal Police, aid workers, civilian contractors and of course our ADF force element, incorporating Army Chief Engineer Works personnel and combat teams for organic force protection.

It is worth noting that, during the past four years, as security steadily improved the number of NGOs deployed in Oruzgan assisting the local population grew from just six to 50. That means better health care, education, commerce and infrastructure. More broadly, the report to congress Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, in April 2010, found very pleasing developments: two-thirds of the districts of Afghanistan can offer Afghan citizens access to basic health care; a polio immunisation campaign is underway; 648 midwives have graduated from supported programs, representing a quarter of all midwives in the country. Also, the total number of trained midwives in Afghanistan has reached 2,500, compared to just 475 under Taliban rule. Prenatal care visits are up 17 per cent and the number of women using school birth attendance is up 40 per cent. Currently, approximately two-thirds of school-age children are attending primary school in Afghanistan. Nearly seven million students are enrolled in primary and secondary schools and 37 per cent are female. Under the Taliban, only 900,000 students were enrolled in primary and secondary schooling—all boys, no girls.

University enrolment in Afghanistan has grown to 62,000, compared to only 7,881 under the Taliban. Between 2002 and 2010, more than 75.6 million textbooks have been printed in Dari and Pashto, for grades 1 to 12, in subject areas such as language, maths, biology and geography. Finally, more than 680 schools have been built or refurbished. That is worth being in Afghanistan for; that is why we are there. These are the goals which we seek. There is of course much more to be done. These measures should form the primary benchmarks by which our success in Afghanistan is measured.

Particular challenges we should be mindful of are the fact that around 60 per cent of the Afghani population is under the age of 25. These are a key recruitment pool for insurgent groups. The opportunities for those young people in Afghanistan in the future will be overlooked at our great peril. The focus of these efforts must be very much geared to those individuals.

The equity of aid distribution must also deal with the spectrum of need across the nation and not marginalise those areas of the country that are presently the focus of military engagement. The Lowy Institute was told in June this year of a story of one group interviewed in Afghanistan, which said:

“we didn’t grow poppy, we supported the Government and we embraced non-violent means to raise our concerns, but the Government of Afghanistan and the international community focuses only in the insurgent-afflicted areas. We feel we don’t matter to the government or the international community because we didn’t pick up guns and fight”

This is an important warning to us in our activities and programs in Afghanistan in how we dispense, distribute and support this country in getting to its feet and creating a future for itself. Of course, our own troops are intensely engaged in the training of the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army’s 209th Atal—which means ‘hero’—Corps in defending their own country. We have around 700 soldiers in the first mentoring task force who are currently committed to this operation. Creating the opportunity for this country to take hold of its own future is an exciting and worthy goal. This is a fundamental point. It is about building capacity for self-governance. To achieve this will require the Afghani people to develop a thirst and confidence in their own future.

When I meet Afghan asylum seekers in our detention centres and I see individuals who have given up on their country, it is a sad thing. We do not judge them in making that decision, and the fact that they have taken the decisions they have is evidence of the greater effort we need to make to give Afghans a greater sense of confidence in the future of their nation, as our grandfathers and fathers did when they took up arms and ensured the security of our nation in the conflicts where Australia was directly under threat.

In addition to training and reforming the governance of Afghanistan, made possible by security delivered by our defence forces, Afghanistan must also address the difficult issue of reconciliation. Whether it is in Rwanda, South Africa or Afghanistan there can be no reconciliation without truth or justice. Simple amnesties will not suffice. The truth must be told, wrongs acknowledged, injustices condemned and victims and families heard to heal the wounds. These wounds, of course, include and go well beyond the recent Taliban rule.

It is important that we find the sort of depth of leadership that was provided by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in pursuing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process in South Africa, which has been such a healing process for that country. A similar process was put in place in Rwanda post the genocides. If South Africa can do it and, in particular, if Rwanda can do it—where almost a million people were macheted to death in the space of around 100 days—then Afghanistan can indeed do it. Our troops, our civilians, our forces, our fellow Australians and our allies are engaged in this great battle and we cannot shirk from it.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this most significant of issues in this forum. As the grandson, son and nephew of men who have served for Australia in the AIF in the First and Second World Wars, I put on the record my support for the Afghanistan deployment. I would like to acknowledge all the speakers who have come before me in contributing to this debate for the deep thoughts and carefully considered arguments which they have offered up. In the shared bipartisan views as well as the divergent arguments that have been put forward in this place we have seen both a chief responsibility and one of the greatest features of our national parliament. The Afghanistan deployment is one of the most significant issues before our country, and it is right and fair that it should be discussed in this forum. The Australian deployment in Afghanistan is of national significance and also the deepest personal significance for the families of the 21 Australian soldiers who gave their lives for our democracy in Afghanistan and of the 156 men who have been injured as a result of this conflict.

In light of that sad and serious toll, it is important to discuss in depth our reasons for maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan. As we have heard, Australia’s contribution of 2,350 personnel and equipment in the Middle East area of operations, of which 1,550 troops are in Afghanistan, is our most significant contribution since Vietnam. All Australians feel the responsibility and significance of Australia’s deployment in Afghanistan. Coming from a region on the Darling Downs which is closely linked with the Australian Defence Force, that significance is felt more sharply and the responsibility is that bit heavier. The people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs have a long history of firsthand experience with the ADF. We know what it is like for Defence to be a major employer and understand the contribution made by personnel to our national defence and our national character but also, most importantly, our international reputation.

While the Darling Downs is not instantly recognisable as the home of defence bases as are other cities such as Townsville, the ADF has been part of our community for decades—almost a century, in fact, through both Borneo Barracks at Cabarlah and the Oakey Army Aviation Centre. Like many regional and rural areas, the long-term allegiance to the ADF is also evident in local cenotaphs scattered across my electorate and in countless memorial halls and RSLs. It is also clear from the connections so many people in my region have to defence personnel, whether they are currently serving or provided the service in the past, as is the case with my family. Thus, for this region there is an added resonance to the debate about our future in Afghanistan, which is taking place in all communities across Australia. Nine years after Australian troops were first deployed in Afghanistan, it is fair for Australia to be asking what the purpose of our deployment is and whether it should continue. I believe the answer to the latter question is an obvious yes. Our deployment of troops should continue for the reasons we first entered into the war: to stand against terrorism and to stand with our ally the United States but also to reflect Australia’s obligations as a mature democracy that accepts its international responsibilities.

As all Australians understand, our deployment in Afghanistan began in the gravest of circumstances, following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001. As someone who was in parliament at the time—in fact, in cabinet at the time—I can say that Australia readily embraced its responsibility both as a fierce opponent of any form of terrorism and as an ally of the United States, and sent a deployment to Afghanistan under the United Nations mandated International Security Assistance Force as part of the global fight against terrorism. While Australia’s original deployment was an important part of international solidarity, it was about more than just being a good ally. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were anathema to Australia and to Australians. Afghanistan had long been a training ground for terrorists, including those who perpetuated the attacks in Bali and Jakarta and against our embassy in Indonesia. Over the past decade close to 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks, including 15 Australians in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in the United States. Therefore, Australia’s deployment to Afghanistan must be to dismantle a terrorist safe haven and has always been strongly guided by a will to protect Australia’s national security interests.

In the nine years since the initial deployment, our chief objective has changed. However, it does not follow from this that our purpose for being in Afghanistan has diminished. While the objectives of the deployment have evolved, the deployment remains in Australia’s national security interests, just as it was in 2001. Australia’s role in Afghanistan is threefold: to deny refuge to terrorists, to stabilise Afghanistan and to honour our alliance obligations under the ANZUS treaty.

The coalition supports a strategy that in the first instance denies Afghanistan as a training ground and an operational base for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. We also support the stabilisation of the Afghan state through a combination of civil, police and military training for local Afghans to enable them to achieve self-determination within a reasonable period of time. Australian troops are now training the 4th Afghan Brigade with a view to providing them with the skills to ultimately take full responsibility for the security of their own citizens. It is a task that is not only challenging but also worth the investment of time to do it properly. The 4th Brigade being capable of controlling Oruzgan is the key to enabling our troops to withdraw so that the Afghans can control their own destiny, a safe and secure place where people can live without fear of reprisals from the Taliban and other criminal elements. While this is an important task, it is also true that it is dangerous and progress can be elusive. Nonetheless, on evidence from the Department of Defence, progress is being made.

To leave abruptly or to impose an artificial deadline at which point Australia would withdraw both our troops and our support puts at risk compromising all the progress that has been made to date. The Australian deployment in Afghanistan is not stuck in a quagmire; it is not a deployment that persists for pride, hubris or a misplaced sense of loyalty. It is a deployment that shows Australia is true to its word and is serious about its responsibilities as a modern global democracy. If Australia is to fulfil its responsibilities in this sense, we cannot engage with other countries only if and when we choose.

In the past, our nation has shown that it believes in democracy with sufficient strength that we have fought to help ensure other nations can begin their own journeys towards their own democracies as the best way to preserve freedoms and basic human rights. I still believe that to be the case, but the path to democracy is not something we should impose from above and nor should we set strict rules about how other nations’ democracies should look in practice. But if we are no longer prepared to defend the ideal of democracy as a political model worth aspiring to then we are failing in our duties as a mature and resilient democracy.

While it is true that the Australian contingent of 1,550 troops is small compared to our allies the United States and Britain, it is both an important symbol of our allegiance to the ideals and practices of democracy and an important purpose driven deployment that is achieving real objectives. It is easy to defend democracy from a country such as Australia where many of the most fiercely fought-for rights, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of self-determination, are so ingrained that their day-to-day existence is no longer a marvel but is more like a taken-for-granted reality. Equally, some may say that it is easy to argue in favour of our soldiers’ mission from this place rather than from the soil of Afghanistan.

In preparing for this debate I read the reports of progress in Afghanistan. One of the statistics that was truly remarkable was the percentage of female students now enrolled in schools there. From around one million students attending school in 2001, none of whom were girls, today there are more than six million children at school, one-third of whom are girls. Other reports indicate an increase in the availability of basic health services and the development of community based infrastructure projects. When I look at such reports I cannot be swayed by any argument that the work of Australia’s deployment in Afghanistan is futile.

Australia made a commitment to help secure the future for Afghan citizens and to work to prevent their nation from becoming a future breeding ground of terrorists. It is true that progress to date has not been perfect. The Karzai government has work to do before the nation is free from the influence of corruption, but I believe it is wrong to view Afghanistan as an occupied country. Rather, it is a fragile political environment in which everyday people are increasingly taking both responsibility and control. I also acknowledge that we cannot eliminate terrorism from all parts of the region, let alone the world, but through our deployment Australia can help, and is helping, to ensure stability to prevent Afghanistan from falling back into the clutches of terrorism. This is important not only for the country itself but also for the region.

Ultimately, our success in this objective and the fate of the region will depend upon the people of Afghanistan. One day Afghanistan will and must be responsible for its own security and for its own destiny, but if we walk away now we risk condemning the people of Afghanistan to failure before the first benefits of success can be appreciated and, worse still, signpost a message that democracy is only for some and at some point worth giving up on. I cannot and will not subscribe to this view.

While this debate has been ongoing in the formal environment of this place, I am mindful that the real work is being completed in Afghanistan where the troops who accepted the consequence of our parliamentary debate are going about their work with pride and with purpose. Australia is playing a significant role training and promoting the development of the Afghan people in determining their destiny. This is not a task to be taken lightly and its significance should never be underestimated. To fight for the liberties of the people of Afghanistan freed from the influence of terrorism is to uphold the spirit of the reason that Australians were deployed to Afghanistan in the first place.

To expect a simple realisation of this objective would be at best naive and at worst deliberately turning our back on the task that we set out to achieve. Australia has made a commitment to the international forces that are rebuilding Afghanistan and has made a commitment to the people of Afghanistan. As a nation we have borne the most serious and sad consequences of our deployment in Afghanistan, but our resolve must remain unshaken. We are committed to this mission and to getting the job done. For us in Australia we are a country that has been so blessed for so long with democracy—one of the few countries that have enjoyed democracy for more than a century uninterrupted—and we have never really had an enemy on our shores. We must play our role in ensuring that fruits we earn from our democracy are shared amongst other countries less fortunate than ours. In doing that we must also be mindful of the tremendous sacrifices the men and women of Australia’s defence forces, Federal Police force and NGOs make in securing that democracy and that freedom for others.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the morning of 11 September 2001, I was living in Boston. Standing in the atrium of the Littauer Building of the Harvard Kennedy School I watched up at the television screen and saw smoke pour out of the twin towers. Standing around me were students from around the globe, including many Americans. Some had friends who had boarded flights leaving Boston at 8 am that morning whom they would never see again.

That morning we were supposed to choose our classes. To help us decide Harvard had each professor give a short overview of their course offering. By chance, I entered the room where Professor Michael Ignatieff was presenting his overview. After a minute’s silence to remember those who had died that morning, Ignatieff spoke eloquently about international law and the challenges of deciding when to intervene in another nation for humanitarian reasons. He balanced the heart and the head—the need to honour those we have lost while thoughtfully considering the circumstances to justify sending our military overseas.

When I left the classroom, one of the twin towers had fallen. The second would fall soon afterwards. There was little doubt that the attack was planned from Afghanistan. A month later, US forces entered Afghanistan. Australian special forces troops followed soon afterwards. The mission was authorised under UN Security Council Resolution 1386. Since 2006, Australian troops have served in Oruzgan province, providing security and reconstruction.

Nearly a decade on from September 11, our parliament is debating whether Australian troops should remain in Afghanistan. Historically, we have debated such matters about once a decade: most recently in 2002 and, before that, in 1991. Such debates are important not only for what they say about particular engagements but also for what they say about the general principles that guide Australia in deciding when to send troops abroad.

I am not an isolationist. In 1991, Bob Hawke reminded this parliament of Neville Chamberlain’s words of 1938 when he said, ‘Why should we be concerned with a faraway country of which we know little?’ Hawke reminded the parliament that Chamberlain’s answer was provided by the horrific events that followed. ‘The great lesson of this century,’ said Hawke ‘is that peace is bought at too high a price if that price is the appeasement of aggression.’

But, just because it is right to intervene in some circumstances, it does not follow that all international engagements are justified. Opponents of our mission have pointed to Afghanistan’s many lasting problems. Afghanistan is one of the poorest parts of the world, and Oruzgan province is one of the poorest parts of Afghanistan, with subsistence-level incomes and literacy rates of one per cent for women and 10 per cent for men. Ninety per cent of public spending in Afghanistan comes from foreign aid and, while NGOs in Afghanistan have done some tremendous work, there is always a risk that those organisations could create parallel institutions and tempt Afghan professionals to leave the bureaucracy.

Yet we have made progress. Modern Afghans are a generation of people who, having come through decades of violence and unimaginable privation, possess a remarkable degree of fair-mindedness. Many seek the establishment of equity under the law and the restoration of social order. For example, the Afghan parliament now features 68 female members and has demonstrated Afghanistan’s growing pluralism and commitment to good governance by blocking ministerial candidates that it believes are unqualified or unfit to hold public office. More funding means more built infrastructure, and it is work such as this, in parallel with similar efforts around Afghanistan, that has led to the situation where over six million school age children—2½ million of them young women—are now accessing primary education.

History teaches us very few clear lessons. It is true that, in the 19th century, Afghanistan halted the expansion of the British Empire, massacring complete regiments of British soldiers in the passes outside Kabul. It is also the case that, in the 20th century, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviet Union’s best divisions and hastened communism’s collapse. Yet there are major differences between the Soviet occupation of the 1980s and our current attempt to rebuild war-torn Afghanistan. As Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Wardak points out:

Unlike the Russians, who imposed government … you enabled us to write a democratic constitution … Unlike the Russians, who destroyed the country, you came to rebuild.

I fear that a simplistic portrayal of Afghanistan engenders defeatism and shows a lack of humanism. We must go forward with a new consensus on our continuing role in Afghanistan not only for the benefit of our serving men and women but also for the Afghan people, who deserve the chance to enjoy the benefits of a sovereign democratic nation.

In part, the role of ISAF and the coalition in Afghanistan is a tactical mission, directly targeting those who are planning bombings. In this capacity, a series of articles in last week’s New York Times suggests that better intelligence and the use of new rocket systems that are accurate to within a metre have severely weakened the Taliban and reduced the number of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on coalition troops and Afghan civilians.

But our mission is more than hunting insurgents. In Afghanistan the international community is working to ensure that the Afghan people can enjoy the fruits of good governance and stability that have so far eluded their country. For Australia’s part, the ADF are engaged in training the 4th Afghan Brigade and providing security, funding and personnel for Oruzgan’s provincial reconstruction team, which helps to build local infrastructure and assist with government services.

In my view, there are four reasons why we should stay in Afghanistan. First, we should do so because of our alliance commitments. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out, a unanimous resolution of this House formally invoked articles IV and V of the ANZUS Treaty against those responsible for the terrorist attacks on 11 September.

Second, we should do so because of international law. Article 2 of UN Security Council Resolution 1386 calls upon member states to ‘contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF’. Forty-seven nations have heeded that call. Just like Australia, the rest of the international community realises that their position in Afghanistan is driven by a concept of principled engagement. Here there is shared fundamental human compassion, respect for universal human rights and commitment to raise the quality of life and to fight extremist behaviour. Together we share the moral courage to put our country men and women at risk to ensure that these tenets are upheld in a country which beforehand was a byword for conflict and instability.

The third and fourth reasons why we should stay in Afghanistan are that our work is helping reduce the threat of terrorism and that our efforts are helping to improve the humanitarian position of the Afghan people. A generation ago most military experts would have argued that these are fundamentally different missions, but modern counterinsurgency thinking is increasingly demonstrating that they are interwoven.

Training the Afghan 4th Brigade is much more than simply teaching these soldiers how to fight an insurgency. As members of the Australian Defence Force, our instructors believe in the importance of good governance, the rule of law and building civilian institutions. I am optimistic that in time these Afghan soldiers will demonstrate capacity to shield the Oruzgan community from corruption and coercion, not just outright violence.

The provision of government services and infrastructure are the basic weapons against extremism. In his recent book on the root causes of terrorism, Eli Berman argues that ‘social service provision creates the institutional base for most of the dangerous radical religious rebels’. To halt extremism, the international community must follow the same approach. We must tackle the fundamental social, political and economic issues that generate the lack of livelihood and the sense of hopelessness that beget extremism wherever they exist. Address these issues and you begin to unravel the extremist organisation.

To really shut down insurgent groups in Afghanistan we must continue to provide the basics: electricity, education, health care and welfare services. In the longer term we also need to be looking at the types of higher education and training that will ensure that young people have the option to build a real livelihood and access secondary services, rather than simply turn to extremism for moral and material sustenance. Just as ISAF special forces soldiers pursue Taliban leaders, the international community must be even more assiduous in providing the social outreach that stops Afghans from joining the insurgency.

The fact that insurgents seek to sabotage such services and attack those who attend demonstrates that building such infrastructure is our most potent way of combating such extremism. Indeed, counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen has described this strategy as ‘armed social work’. Using soldiers to protect a newly constructed school is unglamorous but it may be the best way of crippling insurgents in the long run.

In recent months the Australian government has moved to deliver more funding to the reconstruction team that provides just these types of services. Our provincial reconstruction team is now able to access up to 20 per cent of the $123 million of aid destined for Afghanistan. What happens in Afghanistan directly affects Australians. As Anthony Bubalo and Michael Fullilove have pointed out, Afghanistan helped form the mind of Noordin Top, a terrorist who masterminded a string of bombings directed towards Australians in Indonesia. Bubalo and Fullilove also point out that Afghanistan lies ‘in a region that shares an ocean with Australia; contains two nuclear powers that have come close to war—and in Iran, a possible third—is close to the heart of international energy supplies; has become a major exporter of drugs; and lacks any viable regional security framework’.

It is now clear that we have entered a new stage in our involvement in Afghanistan. This is a new era signalled not merely by the openness with which this debate is being conducted but also by broader changes in counterinsurgency strategy on the part of ISAF. We are entering a transition phase, moving to Afghan lead roles in both security operations and civilian government. This does not mean that foreign troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014, but it does mean that, by the time of their next presidential election, Afghan forces will be in the lead. Parallel to this will be a process of reconciliation, in which some insurgents who wish to rejoin the mainstream will have the opportunity to do so. Of course, not all groups will have this chance —some are utterly unacceptable—but, as the experience of other countries has shown, insurgencies almost invariably end in negotiation.

Australian forces have continued to re-evaluate how Australian personnel cooperate with Afghanistan’s various stakeholders such as the Afghan government, ISAF and non-government organisations. Our mission also involves integration between our own military and civil agencies. There are 50 to 60 Australian government civilians in Afghanistan today, including 28 Australian Federal Police members and a number of DFAT and AusAID personnel. I am proud of the work these public servants are doing, not least because about half of them live in my electorate.

The lessons learnt on the ground and from our international partners in Afghanistan will serve Australia well in future stabilisation efforts. In the coming decades Australia and the international community will often have to make rapid decisions on whether to intervene to counter extremism and avoid destabilisation.

When it comes to intervening in other countries, the international community in the past has made mistakes. Many have argued that we should not have intervened in Vietnam. And in retrospect, we should have intervened earlier in Rwanda.

Yet sometimes war is just. In World War I my great-grandfather was a radio operator on an Australian Navy ship off German New Guinea. In World War II my grandfather was an army medic in Bougainville. I am proud of both of their service.

More recently Australia can be proud of our own deployments that have supported our values—deployments which have showed that we can adapt to and confront challenging social and political landscapes far from home soil. In our current efforts in East Timor, in the Solomon Islands and, of course, in Afghanistan from 2001 to today, Australia is continuing to rebuild societies and save lives.

For the future, there is no simple test that determines when and how we should intervene, but some principles should guide our thinking. As our nation has always done, we must honour the fallen, for there is no greater sacrifice than to lay down your life for your country. Yet our decisions must be made based on future costs and future benefits not just to our own personnel but to affected civilians. No decision today can bring back those lives that have been tragically lost.

We must also realise the complexity of the moral and leadership challenge before us. The political calculus must not be to ensure a crude ‘exit strategy’ but be to deliver a good and honourable humanitarian outcome for these most vulnerable.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some have argued in this place that Afghanistan is in the ‘too hard’ basket—it is just not worth the effort. It is another Vietnam, they say. We are told that Alexander the Great took one look and went home. Genghis Khan could not be bothered. The Russians gave up. We are being asked to accept that, because three of the most ruthless empire builders in history did not bother with Afghanistan, we should not either. The fatal flaw with that argument is that we are not in Afghanistan to build an empire. We are not in there to subjugate or enslave; we are there to help. We are in Afghanistan to help establish a secure, functioning democracy—a country where respect for the law, tolerance of difference and peace are the norm.

Citing the failures or lack of interest of others over millennia as a sound rationale for leaving Afghanistan to fall in the hands of terrorists and extremists is a nonsense. It is precisely because it is difficult that it demands much of us that would be worth seeing through. Nothing worth having comes easily. If we just give up—wash our hands, walk away—we will leave a people at the mercy of those who have no respect for human life, who espouse a hate-filled, destructive, distorted fanaticism and who believe that educating girls and women is evil.

The federal Labor government is not cowardly. Labor does not run from tough fights. Social democrats do not flinch. We believe in the prosecution of just wars. It was Labor who saw us through World War I, Labor who saw us through World War II and Labor who saw us through the first Gulf War. Throughout Labor’s history we have demonstrated time and time again that the difficult battles are the ones worth fighting. Whether it is for fair pay, safe working conditions or support for those who are less empowered—all the hard won achievements that better people’s lives—these battles make a real difference to the world, to the future and to people, regardless of where they live. This federal Labor government has the courage, the fortitude and the tenacity to see it through, to work with our partners to help give the people of Afghanistan a hand—a lift up, a lasting chance at peace and democracy—to enjoy the rights and freedoms we readily take for granted in this country. It is this federal Labor government that will continue the very difficult task of helping the Afghani people, of supporting them in creating a country where their children can prosper and their girls can be educated—a place of peace and democracy.

Our involvement in Afghanistan is not about altruism, although the outcomes are worthy of that title. Our involvement is centred on the national interest as well—to prevent an insidious and brutal force establishing itself as a globally destructive regime within a sympathetic and secure base. Making sure the extremists do not put down permanent roots in Afghanistan is in Australia’s national and best interest. We are opposed to Islamic extremists, narcoterrorists and fundamentalist fascists who brutally slaughtered Australian citizens and the citizens of our ally nations. This is a big ask. It is a really tough mission, but this federal Labor government does not shrink from the big challenges, and it will not shed its principles for expediency. We all know that the war in Afghanistan has been and continues to be very difficult, but it is legal. As recently as 13 October this year, the UN Security Council renewed the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force of 47 nations in Afghanistan.

We see the tragic loss of Australian lives: 21 soldiers have lost their lives—21 Australians, 21 families. This is a sorrow that rests heavily on our collective heart. We continue to send our brave soldiers to fight on foreign soil against a wily and ruthless opponent. These are grave sacrifices. Hundreds have been injured as well, and that is not to be taken lightly. But it is crystal clear that these sacrifices are paying off—frustratingly and painfully slowly. Because of our involvement in Afghanistan in partnership with 46 other countries of the ISAF, more Afghani children are going to school. Six million attend school regularly, and 40 per cent of those are girls—girls who will have their dreams fulfilled. Already we have supported 78 school reconstruction projects. Women who suffered so cruelly under the previous Taliban regime are now running for parliament. Small businesses are emerging, and we have disbursed over 950 microfinance loans. We are helping refurbish hospitals and assisting in the rehabilitation of health centres and health posts. We are constructing a new building for the Department of Energy and Water and constructing bridge crossings.

We are training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to take responsibility for their own country’s security. Democracy is emerging in Afghanistan. We know the Karzai government is not without its failings, faults and foibles. Democracy is admittedly shaky in Afghanistan but it is taking its first tentative steps and it is gradually finding its feet, nonetheless. The Prime Minister expects Australia’s presence in Afghanistan to remain until 2020 at least. She has made it clear that we believe our timetable of two to four years for training the Afghan national security forces—the army and the police—where they are currently located in Oruzgan province is appropriate and in accordance with international expectations and the expectation of the Karzai government.

The Taliban, which harboured al-Qaeda within Afghanistan, refuse to contemplate surrender, but only when faced with force will they respect democracy and respect the efforts of the Afghani people who are fighting them. Each of the gains we have made has been painful and there have been many. To abandon this process, to abandon the progress which has been made, to run away from the challenge now, I think is to gamble ruthlessly with the lives of peaceloving friends and allies but of peaceloving Afghani people as well. It would be to desert every mother who wants a better life for her child, particularly her daughter, and it would snuff out the hopes of millions for a better life.

We must remember that 88 Australians were killed in the Bali bombing in 2002, four Australians were killed in the second Bali bombing in 2005 and our embassy in Jakarta was bombed. In each of these cases the terrorist groups involved had links with extremists and fundamentalist fascists in Afghanistan. To put our heads in the sand will only ensure that these types of incidents will occur again. We have to be vigilant, we have to be determined and we have to be committed. The goal of the international community must remain to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan because it is in our vital national interests to be there alongside our friend and ally the United States of America. We are there legally in accordance with the obligations that we have undertaken in the ANZUS treaty. We are there legally in defence of our national interests and in accordance with UN resolutions. On 11 September 2001 al-Qaeda killed 3,000 innocent people from 90 countries in a dreadful attack in the United States of America. All of us will remember when that happened, just as our forebears remember where they were when Harold Holt went missing or John F Kennedy was assassinated.

In my electorate the RAAF base at Amberley is located and Ipswich is a military town. The people there are committed to support the troops in Afghanistan. My daughter’s friends are there; my friends have been there; and our friends from the RAAF base at Amberley, the Air Force and Army personnel have been in the Middle East. They have made sacrifices for us and undertaken service for us. The hardest thing I have had to do since I have been elected to this place was attend the repatriation services at the RAAF base at Amberley alongside the then defence minister, Senator John Faulkner. On these occasions the bodies of fallen Australian soldiers have been returned to their loved ones, their bodies in caskets carried on the shoulders of their comrades out of a C17 aircraft, through a military guard and into the embrace of their mothers and fathers, wives and partners, brothers and sisters. On these occasions words of comfort and solace seem inadequate and trite. But in the conversations with the loved ones of the fallen diggers, the message to us is always the same: in their grief they are proud of the sacrifices made by their loved ones. Their husband, their partner, their son or their brother believed they were doing good, making a difference and helping the Afghani people. I respect their view. I agree with them. I stand with them. I support our military efforts in Afghanistan. I support our civilian assistance in Afghanistan. I support our troops in Afghanistan.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important debate. Fifteen hundred and fifty Australian personnel are deployed in Afghanistan. Twenty-one have died; over 150 have been wounded. By any measure, we are paying and we have paid a significant price to be in Afghanistan. Twenty-one men have paid an unimaginably high price. Their family and friends face enormous and continuing loss. The injured in many cases face a life fundamentally changed. So why are we in Afghanistan and should we stay there? This is a question best answered, I suggest, in two parts. I want to speak firstly about why Australia joined in the invasion of Afghanistan, a decision I believe that was absolutely correct, before turning to the more difficult question of what we should do now.

We went into Afghanistan as part of an international response to the terrorist outrage of September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 people died when four aircraft were hijacked. Two were flown into the two World Trade Centre buildings and a third was flown into the Pentagon. The fourth was apparently aiming at the White House but ended up crashing in rural Pennsylvania, evidently after a struggle between terrorists and passengers. The attacks were coordinated by the Islamic terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is closely linked with the Taliban, the extremist Islamic organisation which took power in Afghanistan in the late nineties. Al-Qaeda members lived and trained in Afghanistan and their leader, Osama bin Laden, lived there.

The US and the UK responded to the outrage of September 11 by launching military operations against the Taliban in October 2001. The United Nations Security Council, by resolution 1386, passed on 20 December 2001, authorised the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force. Its initial mission was Kabul and surrounding areas, and in 2003 a further resolution expanded its role to the whole of Afghanistan. The expanded mission has been regularly reinforced by subsequent Security Council resolutions.

Australia has been involved to varying degrees in Afghanistan since 2001, although our forces were reduced to very low levels between 2003 and 2005, with more emphasis given to the war in Iraq at that time. From 2006, Australian special forces were redeployed and today we have 1,550 personnel operating as the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Oruzgan province.

In my view, the decision to go into Afghanistan originally was absolutely correct. We needed to be part of a united effort by the Western world, by civilised, advanced nations, to respond to an appalling attack by extremist terrorists. Our way of life in Australia is based upon the values and principles of a modern, democratic, capitalist, pluralist world. We benefit enormously from being part of a community of nations with similar values, led by the United States but also including the nations of Europe, Canada and New Zealand, and many nations in Asia and South America.

We share core values. In these nations you are free to worship as you choose. You have the right to cast a vote to determine who governs you. If you have a grievance you can go to court for redress. If you are accused of a crime you will receive a fair trial. Our people travel freely back and forth between these nations and others for education, for work and for leisure. We read each other’s newspapers and books. The universities of each nation generate knowledge which benefits all. Our economies are intertwined. There is much cross-investment and trade, which benefits us all. Most importantly, in these nations citizens are free to pursue their goals and ambitions in life, to make a better life for themselves and their families, to seek education or to seek fortune and to help others and to do these things in as many different ways as they may choose.

September 11 2001 saw a vicious attack on these values and the nations which embody them. We were attacked by a group of extremists who believe in a primitive, fundamentalist theology and who use the force of arms to impose on all within their control the obligation to follow their beliefs. This attack happened to occur on United States soil, but it was an attack against all of us in the West. As we know all too painfully, it was followed by an attack in Bali in 2002, where 88 Australians were killed; an attack on the Australian Embassy in Indonesia in 2004; the London train and bus bombings in 2005; another attack in Bali in 2005; and the attack on hotels in Jakarta in 2009. The evidence suggests that every one of these attacks was planned and executed from terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan.

We are facing an attack on our way of life and on our values. The West had no choice but to respond, firstly, to demonstrate that those who are opposed to what we stand for cannot attack us with impunity but, secondly, to seek to root out the problem by removing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and replacing it with a more stable government which no longer provided a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve that latter objective, we needed to work to deliver a better life and better outcomes for the people of Afghanistan, because without that you will not achieve stability in that country.

It would have been feasible for Australia to decline to participate in that international effort, an effort conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and one with such widespread international engagement and approval that 47 nations are involved in the International Security Assistance Force. We could have done that. We could have stayed on the sidelines. But would that have been the right thing for us to do? We are, as I have mentioned, part of a community of nations which share core values, and those values are under attack. Would it have been the right thing for us to do to stand idly by, to do nothing? Would it have been right for us to keep our armed forces safely at home in their barracks when young American men and women, young British men and women and the men and women of many other countries were exposing themselves to enormous danger in the defence of those shared values? I do not think that would have been right. Just as importantly, I do not think it would have been in Australia’s national interest. Our national security is critically reliant on our alliance, firstly, with the United States and, secondly, with other Western nations such as the UK, to which I have referred. For us to stand by while our allies entered a conflict to protect our shared way of life would have seriously weakened those security relationships.

The question of what we should have done in 2001 is one thing. Today, of course, we face an even harder question. We are in Afghanistan. We have been there, to varying degrees, for nine years. It is a difficult war. We are fighting against an enemy which is hard to distinguish from the local civilian population. We are fighting to support a regime, the Karzai regime, which is very far from perfect. We are fighting a war in circumstances where the objectives have changed and reduced since we began. We are fighting a war which is increasingly costly to Australia not only in economic terms but, vastly more importantly, in human terms. Should we stay in or is it right for us to pull out now? That is the question which faces Australia. In my view, it is also the key point which answers the argument which is made by some, including the Greens. Afghanistan is a failed state and terrorist haven, they say, but so are other places, like Somalia, yet we are not in Somalia. That is quite true and that is precisely the point. We are not in Somalia. Hence, we do not face the decision about whether to stay or go. In Afghanistan we do. That is our choice.

In my view, the right way to analyse this question, to analyse the decision which faces the Australian government, is to recognise two realities. The first is that we are part of an international coalition led by the United States. We are not the decision maker. We may have some modest capacity to influence the thinking of the US through our diplomatic relations, although we should not overstate that, but we are not the decision maker in terms of the overall international effort. Clearly, if the United States were not in this war, we would not be in it. The second reality is that, sooner or later, the US will exit this war. It will cease to have a military presence in Afghanistan. It may be in one year; it may be in five years. Very clearly, at that point at the very latest, we will exit too.

Let me in passing make the point that no nation on earth has the track record of the United States for entering other countries, stabilising them, getting them back on their feet and then exiting. Why is Japan a stable and prosperous democracy today? It is because, after a vicious conflict in World War II, the United States occupied Japan, its former enemy, and helped it; and when Japan was ready to be independent the US troops went home. Germany is a stable and prosperous democracy today because of the wise, far-sighted, generous and humane conduct of the United States immediately after World War II. So too is much of Europe. The US is not perfect, of course, but at their finest, the values displayed by the US are very much to be admired. It is far from irrelevant that this is the nation which is leading the international effort in Afghanistan.

That being said, the decision which the US and its international allies face in Afghanistan is a very difficult one. We have not secured a comprehensive victory or anything like it. We have not established Afghanistan as a prosperous, liberal democracy. But I do not think that we should be wholly gloomy. We have certainly demonstrated very powerfully that you do not launch terrorist attacks against Western targets and Western civilisation without facing a powerful response. Of course the world would be a better place if it were not necessary to use force, but when you are dealing with evil people who are prepared to use it themselves, regrettably there is sometimes no choice but to respond. We have hugely disrupted the Taliban and tipped them out of government, and we have made some modest, cautious progress in stabilising Afghanistan and delivering some benefits to the population. The work of the Australian mission in Oruzgan province is an important part of that.

The real problem is that the outcome is finely balanced. An ill-judged pullout could leave Afghanistan vulnerable to the Taliban taking power again and making that nation once again an international terrorist haven. The aim of the international community in due course must be to depart from Afghanistan in a way which leaves that nation best able to govern itself and to guard itself against the Taliban or other unsavoury forces.

For Australia, the choice we face today is whether to exit now and leave more of a burden on our friends and allies or to exit later. To stay in is costly. There will be more deaths. There will be more devastated Australians. There will be more children growing up without fathers. We politicians, comfortably situated here in Canberra, cannot pretend to really understand the sacrifices that soldiers and their families make. As other speakers have correctly noted, there is little we can say that is of genuine assistance to families when a son, father, brother or partner has made the ultimate sacrifice. But the hard fact of more pain and death to come is not of itself sufficient to make our decision. As a nation we have to decide whether to stay in while our allies stay in.

We went into Afghanistan because our civilisation was under attack. For the moment, we continue to make progress in stabilising Afghanistan and helping it to re-emerge as a more stable and secure nation. It is slow and painful progress, hard won, and there are many reversals and defeats. We have a worthwhile goal to aim for: to exit at a time when Afghanistan has a reasonable prospect of making it on its own. If the international community, led by the US, ever makes the judgment that even that goal is unreachable then it would be logical to exit. If we reach the point at which that goal is achieved, we should exit. But we are not, I would suggest, at either point yet, and for those reasons the international community has not yet made a decision to exit.

In these circumstances, I believe that although staying in will undoubtedly expose Australia to further pain—in particular, for Australian service personnel and their families who, sadly, may experience further difficulty and tragedy—I nevertheless believe that we should not be making the decision to exit at this time, that we should remain as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, a general once said:

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

So said Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general in the United States Army and the 34th President of the United States. I also hate futility and, while this debate is a welcome opportunity, after nine years, to explore Australians’ commitment to the war, sadly, I know it will not result in any practical ramifications regarding Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. It will provide the opportunity for politicians to voice our views in respect of this complex issue but, considering the broad parliamentary support for the war and the lack of parliamentary process, nothing will change. Will this debate lead to greater public engagement in this issue, or is the debate largely restricted to politicians and the press gallery? If the former eventuates then that of course is a good thing, but I fear the latter will be the reality.

I cannot comprehend how killing people will change hearts and minds. A recent commentary in the Australian stated:

The best military minds in the coalition have been warning for two years that it cannot kill its way to victory in Afghanistan.

When we read about Afghanistan in the papers, it is more often than not concerning the death of a foreign soldier. I want to put on the record my admiration for the men and women of our Defence forces who voluntarily seek to serve our nation in magnificent style in confronting circumstances, knowing that they risk life and limb. Never is one of their lives given in vain. The fact that 21 Australian soldiers have lost their lives as a result of this war is an immense tragedy. Those young men have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their country, and my deepest sympathy goes to their families. Their families and our communities will be poorer for the lives those men will not lead and the contribution they would have made if their lives had not been cut so short. I also want to put on the record my thoughts for the many who have returned injured and traumatised from this conflict.

On another level, it is saddening that the deaths and miseries of civilians in Afghanistan are largely overlooked by the mainstream media and are rarely reported in a meaningful manner. Indeed, they have been rarely talked about in this debate. I find it deeply disturbing that we cannot even nominate a ballpark figure for the number of Afghanis killed since the beginning of this war in 2001. Most estimates range between 14,000 and 44,000 civilian deaths—a huge discrepancy for which there is no adequate justification. Additionally, this figure could be expanded by tens of thousands when you consider those deaths caused by displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness during this war. What we know is that the human cost of conflict in Afghanistan is escalating in 2010. Indeed, as stated by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan:

… nine years into the conflict, measures to protect Afghan civilians effectively and to minimise the impact of the conflict on basic human rights are more urgent than ever.

The Afghanistan Rights Monitor says that 2010 has been the worst year for insecurity since the demise of the Taliban regime in 2001. Not only has the number of security incidents increased but the space and depth of insurgency and counterinsurgency related violence have maximised dramatically. The UNAMA recorded 1,271 deaths, and 1,997 deaths in the first half of this year, telling me this amounts to a 21 per cent increase over the number documented in the first half of 2009.

The Taliban and other antigovernment forces show no respect for the rules of war and civilian life. They have proven they care little for the safety and protection of noncombatants. We know they are increasingly undertaking unlawful means of warfare such as the use of improvised explosion devices, suicide attacks and assassination. As the UNAMA states, this violates:

Basic human rights and international humanitarian law principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution that apply to all parties to an armed conflict, requiring them to minimize civilian loss of life and injury must be reinforced at this critical period.

As well as targeting military objectives, a number of attacks committed by antigovernment forces have occurred in civilian areas where there is no clear military target. Improvised bombs have been planted on public roads, in bazaars, in agricultural fields and even in front of schools, clearly targeting and affecting the civilian population. Suicide bombers, particularly in densely populated and civilian areas, have continuously tormented communities throughout the country. The indiscriminate nature of suicide attacks and the fact they occur in highly populated locations ensure they inflict catastrophic outcomes on the civilian population. It is clear from the brutal tactics employed by the insurgents that the international military forces are facing a fiercely violent and unscrupulous enemy.

A tragic reality of the war is the fact that the international military forces cannot escape blame for the deaths of Afghani civilians either. As the UNAMA notes, civilians continue to be killed, injured and arbitrarily detained and their property damaged or destroyed as a result of some operations of the international military and the Afghani national security forces. Twelve per cent of the total civilian casualties in the first half of this year have been attributed to pro-government forces. While this is down 30 per cent from the first six months of 2009, it still amounts to 386 deaths. This is far too many civilian casualties. Of particular concern is that women and children have made up a greater proportion of those killed and injured than in 2009. Unsurprisingly, Afghanis have demonstrated a strong sensitivity to civilian casualties committed by foreign forces. As Brendan Nicholson commented in the Australian last week:

Every death of a civilian caught in coalition crossfire or in a Taliban bomb is likely to be blamed on the war and foreign troops. Each of those deaths has a dreadful multiplier effect as relatives swear vengeance.

A number of emotional demonstrations have taken place in different parts of Afghanistan against the alleged killings of civilian people by foreign forces. There are serious questions that need to be asked about what effect our military presence has on radicalising Islamic youth and strengthening support for extremist ideology. Islam is not a terrorist organisation; it is a religious faith. All faiths have extremists and all extremists have utilised violence in pursuit of ideology. I ask: does the current military strategy produce the consequences it is attempting to prevent?

Concerns exist that the presence of international forces in Afghanistan actually attracts foreign militants to the country and provides ideal recruiting opportunities for the Taliban and antigovernment forces. In a comprehensive study of suicide attacks, Robert Pape found that the motivation for 95 per cent of terrorist attacks was related to the military occupation of culture and economic dominance of a country with which the terrorists identified. A statement from the Taliban from May this year seems to support this connection where they announced that they would be at targeting the Americans, the NATO military personnel, foreign advisers, spies who pose as foreign diplomats, members of the Karzai administration, contractors of foreign and domestic private security companies, contractors and personnel of military logistics and military construction companies, and all supporters of foreign invaders who are working for the strengthening of foreign domination.

A significant proportion of the Afghan population believes our presence in their country is the real problem in this war. I ask: is our military involvement doing more harm than good? It is suggested that the Australian defence budget is 10 times that of our aid budget to Afghanistan. Given the deep level of poverty in Afghanistan, this seems somewhat misaligned. Afghanistan has all but the lowest human development on record. It ranks at 181 of 182 on the United Nations human development index. There is an estimated 42 per cent of the population living below the poverty line, up from 33 per cent in 2005. An additional 20 per cent of the population are hovering just above the poverty line and are highly vulnerable to shocks and fluctuations in household income and consumption.

Afghanistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world with only 28 per cent of the total population literate. The figure is just 18 per cent for women and girls. It is the most food insecure country on the planet, according to the Food Security Risk Index 2010. These statistics provide a reflection of the immense poverty facing the country. If we want to make long-lasting change in Afghanistan, I believe greater emphasis needs to be placed on addressing these fundamentals. Australia’s military contribution stands at around 1,500 personnel via Operation Slipper, defined as Australia’s military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism—a campaign I support. This is a considerable contribution. With no clear date for the withdrawal or scaling down of our military involvement, our troops will remain in harm’s way for some time to come.

This is a conflict in which victory is not clearly defined. What does victory look like? A peaceful Afghanistan governed by a genuinely democratic government is not something that can be achieved through military means, or has ever been achieved through military means. Realistically it is not something that will be achieved for many, many years. So how much longer will our troops continue to work, to risk their lives on the front line of this war, and how many more civilians need to die? And what measures will we adopt to determine when it is time to withdraw?

It is worth noting the historical record of military involvement in Afghanistan and the fact that there has never been a successful intervention by a foreign power. During the 19th century the British invaded the country on two occasions and failed to achieve their objectives. More recently, the Soviet invasion in 1979 failed miserably, with the Mujahheddin, along with fighters from several other Arab nations, driving the Soviet troops out of the country within a decade. Experience has taught Afghans to treat Western involvement in their country with a degree of cynicism. Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan public is critical, and I am not convinced this will be achieved through military means, particularly when we consider the history of the West’s involvement within this country. The independent research organisation, the Williams Foundation, said, ‘Without exception wars lead to injustice and depravity.’ With civilian and military deaths in the tens of thousands and with the definition of victory ambiguous, I believe it is time to cease Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. Our presence in Afghanistan is fuelling the extremist ideology we are trying to eradicate. Already 21 young Australians have lost their lives as a result of our engagement. Let us not leave when the body count of Australian Defence Force personnel is too high for the public to tolerate. That would be a cynical exercise in the extreme.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had the great honour to represent on more than one occasion the Leader of the Opposition at a ramp ceremony to receive home the body of one of our soldiers who served our nation and paid the ultimate price. On those occasions it is a time one feels a sense of ceremony, respect, the family’s heartache and the pride of the family in the soldier who has died serving his nation. I think the camaraderie of the soldiers who were present on those occasions mirrors the strong Australian tradition of mateship; the Anzac tradition passes to this day to our serving forces and remains a strong and binding force. To see parents, brothers and sisters, wives and girlfriends mourn the loss of a soldier and yet have enormous pride in the fact that he felt he was doing what he believed was right for his country and carried out his duties to the best of his ability is something that pierces you to the very core. Every Anzac Day we commemorate and praise the spirit of Anzac, but to see it alive in the hearts of those who have lost someone so recently is truly awesome.

This debate has been brought about because there are some who hold the view—and we have just heard one—that we should withdraw from Afghanistan. I am not one of those. I am one who believes that the role we are playing in Afghanistan is important and that our soldiers who serve there deserve to hear from their members of parliament that they are supported in the endeavours they are undertaking.

I intend to trace the steps that we went through to play our part in Afghanistan, because I think that in this sort of debate it is important to place it on the record. President Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan following the New York September 11 attacks in 2001. The aim of the mission was to destroy terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, capture al-Qaeda leaders and stop terrorist activities in Afghanistan. I well remember those planes flying into the towers in New York. I was in Tasmania, speaking at a Meals on Wheels conference, and I came back to my room at the end of the dinner and saw the images on the screen. I thought it had to be a movie; I could not believe it was real. It was not until the second plane flew into the tower, about 20 minutes after the first plane, that the enormity of it really struck me. Later, in early 2002, when I visited New York and went to that scene of destruction and devastation, and indeed I attended the President’s prayer breakfast where heroes who had lost their lives during their endeavours were being remembered—firemen and others who had assisted in rescuing people—the enormity really sank in for me. It was when the United States made its case to the NATO Secretary General and the NATO Council said that compelling and conclusive evidence was that the attacks on 11 September 2001 were the work of al-Qaeda, who were being protected by the Taliban, that our commitment began.

The United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 on 20 December 2001 allowed for the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force—ISAF—as a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan. It is reaffirmed by the United Nations each year. By 2002, 136 countries had offered a range of assistance, including 55 countries providing military assistance. Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty and joined coalition forces in military action in Afghanistan from the very beginning. This was the first time since 1952 that the treaty’s clauses on acting to meet a common danger had been invoked. The coalition government’s decision to join a military action was made with the bipartisan support of the Australian Labor Party, under the leadership of Kim Beazley.

Progress in Afghanistan’s development over the past nine years is really quite impressive, and I think it needs to be on the record, because there is some—shall we say—war-weariness in the public and I think the public deserves to hear what is being achieved. Firstly, there has been a dramatic increase in school enrolments, from around one million in 2001, none of whom were girls, to over six million today, of which one-third, or over two million, are girls. We have seen a significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people; the identification and management of over 39,000 community based infrastructure projects, such as wells, clinics and roads, in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan through the Afghan-led National Solidarity Program; and the rehabilitation of almost 10,000 kilometres of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers through the National Rural Access Program. The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001. Ten million Afghans today have access to telecommunications, compared to 20,000 in 2001. Afghanistan’s national economic growth has been strong, from a low base. It has averaged 11 per cent since 2002 and was 22 per cent in 2009-10—off the back of a strong harvest, according to the World Bank.

There have been two elections for the lower house of parliament since 2001. Around 27 per cent of seats in the lower house and one-sixth of the seats in the upper house are reserved for female members. The lower house has significant powers, including the right to reject or approve draft laws, to hold votes of no confidence in government ministers and to reject cabinet nominees. The Taliban suppresses free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off limits—most importantly, issues such as human rights abuses and women’s rights. Under the Taliban, women were indeed slaves by any definition.

Australia’s military contribution to the ISAF in Afghanistan is deployed under Operation Slipper. Australia’s military contribution includes around 1,500 Australian Defence Force personnel who are deployed within Afghanistan, of whom 1,241 are deployed in Oruzgan province and around 300 in Kabul, Kandahar and elsewhere in Afghanistan. These numbers vary depending on operational requirements and shifting seasonal conditions. Eight hundred and thirty personnel provide support from locations within the broader Middle East Area of Operations including our maritime commitment. In keeping with the ISAF strategy to strengthen civilian engagement in Afghanistan and to better integrate civilian and military efforts, in April 2010 the Australian government announced a 50 per cent increase in Australia’s civilian contribution to Afghanistan. We now have around 50 civilians working in Afghanistan in addition to around 10 defence civilian personnel.

Our substantial military, civilian and developmental assistance focuses on training and monitoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade in Oruzgan province to assume responsibility for the province’s security, building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions, helping to improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver core services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people, and operations to disrupt insurgent operations and supply routes utilising the Special Operations Task Force. This is a catalogue of strategic work carried out by Australians, always with their lives at risk but always with the courage that we have come to know, admire and respect in our Australian soldiers. Both men and women who are serving in Afghanistan do us proud. If we look back over the history of battles and wars in which Australia has been involved, we see that when we, the political body, have the courage to back the courage of our Australian troops we are successful. When we lose courage we let them down. So it is of absolutely pivotal importance with this debate that we are having in this parliament that our troops know that they have our confidence, that we believe that what they are doing is the right thing and that we believe in them carrying it out with integrity and bravery and in accordance with the rules of engagement but, overall, knowing that the Australian people admire and respect them.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Until this very moment, I was not sure how I would start this speech. I have to say that, probably like many people, I feel conflicted. I do not think anyone wants our soldiers in a place of danger. I think that in our hearts we all want them home. But unfortunately these decisions are quite often made with our heads. I would just like to say upfront that I believe absolutely that the government of the day, our present government, and our military leaders, have made the decision to be where we are for all the right reasons, and I support their decision absolutely.

I, along with Philip Ruddock and Senator Fielding, was extremely privileged to visit Afghanistan earlier this year as part of an exchange program between the Australian Defence Force and the parliament. We were there for nine days, plus two days of travel. We were well and truly on the ground. We mixed with the troops at every level: in the gym, in the mess and waiting between one event and another. We were briefed by General Petraeus and we were briefed by the departing leader of the Dutch forces and at the highest level of the Australian forces. We were incredibly privileged to be there.

That was my third brief stint with the military. I was with the NORFORCE up in the Northern Territory on the Tiwi Islands for a week a couple of years ago and I did a week’s basic training at Kapooka last year. I have to say that I did not go to Oruzgan province specifically in order to consider whether or not our role in Afghanistan was right or not. I actually went, as my colleagues did, to learn more about our Defence forces so that we, as members of parliament, could provide them with the support they need in the way they carry out their duties.

I want to say that, like my colleagues, the one thing you absolutely find when you spend time with our forces is that they are rightly seen as one of the best-trained forces in the world. They are exceptionally committed, unbelievably well trained and some of the best troops in the world at the kind of work that we are doing in Oruzgan.

They are some of the nicest people you will meet, actually—some of the most polite people and with an extraordinary sense of honour and duty. Even though I was raised in a military suburb, I continue to be amazed at the decisions these men and women make when they decide to serve our country in the way that they do. For those of us who spend small periods of time in relative safety in places even like Oruzgan, we will never know what they live through so that we can live lives that are not touched by the violence that touches so many civilians in other countries around the world. We owe them our greatest debt.

We were there when the election was called, by the way—just as an aside. The election was called on day 5. We were not allowed to tell people we were going in the first place and we were not allowed to tell people we were there, so the three of us disappeared from the radar for 11 days, including the first week of the campaign. That was an interesting time for us and for the soldiers, by the way, because they very much wanted to discuss an election that was happening a long way away. For them, of course, the decisions made by government profoundly affect how well they are able to do the job that they choose to do for us. That was an interesting time.

We arrived just in time for the ramp ceremony for Private Nathan Bewes. We arrived at the tarmac at almost the same time as he was being escorted by his comrades into the Hercules to fly back. That well and truly introduced us to life in Oruzgan, and if we had not already noticed when we got on the charter flight with troops going there for the first time, we well and truly began to come to terms with what life is like for our soldiers working for us as they do in Oruzgan.

As I said, I was in relative safety, as we all were in the compound at Tarin Kowt. I shared a chalet—as it is called, quite wrongly I think, but chalet is the word they use—with three female soldiers. Again, I was able to talk with them and many others about the way they felt about being there, and I want to share that with you more than anything else today. It was the chalet which was subject to a rocket attack two weeks before I arrived, and I did spend quite a bit of time in body armour. It was a truly amazing experience. The camp there could be described as a hellhole. It is 40 degrees plus, and there is so much dust you can barely see 300 metres. Because of the philosophy of the Dutch and the Australians in particular, the camp is not built in any permanent way. There are no permanent structures. The trade training centre where the members of the military train some of the local kids in basic trade skills does have some permanent structures, mainly built by the kids themselves. The police training compound has permanent structures and the camp of the 4th Brigade, which is the Afghan army, has permanent structures. But the rest of the camp, quite rightly, does not.

The conditions in which the troops live there on constant alert for rocket attacks have to be experienced to be believed. One of the first things you do when you get there is to learn to apply a tourniquet to one arm with your other arm. Australia has a very clever invention, a tourniquet which is essentially a rag and a stick, except it is made out of velcro. It is very clever. The assumption is always that you only have one arm at that point. You wear that tourniquet strapped to your chest for most of the rest of your trip. It is your basic piece of equipment. This is a very dangerous place and some of our troops who provide the advance movement for their comrades in searching out the IEDs live with a level of danger that would break many of us and will break many of them. Again, it is an extremely dangerous place.

The overwhelming sense that you get from the troops when you are there is that they believe that is where they should be. These are extraordinary men and women. They were free to talk to us; there was no commanding officer with us. We were wandering and we could talk to anyone, and they were free to talk to us. And they did. But there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming feeling I got from the men and women there is that they believed that they absolutely should be there, that it was a just fight, that they were winning, that they were making real headway and that we had to stay the course.

I would say though that that is not a reason why a government should choose to stay. These are good people. These people will choose to defend the weak and choose to stay if they think there is work to be done. That is their nature and we are lucky to have them. But I want the parliament to know that when you talk to these men and women they absolutely believe that it is where they should be.

The other overwhelming thing that you find when you get there is that while we in Australia talk about Australian troops in Afghanistan, this is an extraordinary international force. The troops there talk about ISAF and they talk about the international forces more often than they talk about the Australian force. We are, of course, part of quite a large force—the International Security Assistance Force under the UN Security Council mandate. There are 47 nations in that force, and we met people from around the world and, again, had the opportunity to talk to them about their contribution.

The Australian contribution is quite specific. It is about training the Afghan 4th Brigade. That is essentially what we do. There is an overwhelming understanding among the allies in Afghanistan that the role that we have there is making sure that Afghanistan can manage itself in a safe environment—that if we were to leave now the Taliban would be back in great numbers and that we are actually winning and driving them back. We are driving them and pursuing them into areas that they have not been before, as they move back up into the hills, which are more dangerous places. There is in Afghanistan a thing called the ‘fighting season’, when the fighting becomes much more aggressive. There are times of the year when there is very little fighting. As odd as it sounds, that happens to coincide with the harvest of the poppy crop. When the harvest is on, the fighting is not. So it is a very strange place in many ways, but there is no doubt that our troops believe that we are actually making serious progress and doing a job that is absolutely worth doing.

There is also a general sense of satisfaction with the equipment which is provided. I know we have had some debate about that but, again, my overwhelming impression is that we have some exceptionally good equipment there, which the troops simply would not and could not do without. They have nothing but praise for the standard of the equipment that they have and are looking forward to the chopper support particularly from the US. As the Dutch have moved out and the US have moved in to support us in Oruzgan, they have been particularly pleased with the US chopper support. The comments made were that if you are going to be supported by anyone in a chopper, the US will go in when no-one else will, so they are the ones that you want on your side particularly if they are picking up someone who is injured. They will go in under fire, under any circumstances, to bring a person out. There have been circumstances where Australians would have lost their lives if not for the support of that particularly extraordinary group of Americans who fly their choppers.

There are many things I would like to say about what I learned, but there are many things I cannot talk about. In fact, even my schedule was confidential and I had to hand it back when I left. So I have had to try and remember the many people I met. Many of my photos were deleted as well, and I cannot even tell you what was in them that caused them to be deleted. There are many things that I simply cannot talk about, so I am just trying to give you the overall impression of it.

It was a delight to meet the Afghanis themselves. I have a very large Afghani population in my community. Many are Hazaras but there are also Sunnis and Shiites. I have people representing the whole Afghani population in Parramatta. There are many Hazara refugees who tell me when I meet them that Oruzgan was their homeland. So this place of 40-degree heat and desert, which has wonderful green zones which I was not allowed to go into, was their homeland. When I talk to them I can see that flash of grief and longing in their eyes, because this is a place where they cannot return for the moment.

I said to some of the Afghanis there, ‘Tell me what Afghanistan is like when the things that should not be there are not—when there is no opium, no Taliban and no military.’ It is an incredible shame that many of them seem to have forgotten. Their lives have been so difficult for so long that that memory of what their country is without these terrible things has faded, and their lives are based on surviving day-to-day. When I get a break in November I am looking forward to sitting down with some of my Hazaras and talking to them about their memory of Oruzgan, which they clearly remember with the greatest affection. What has happened to that country, when you actually go there and see it, is the most extraordinary tragedy. Again, I can only stress that our troops themselves believe that we absolutely should be there.

I am told that the Taliban are one of the worst enemies that we have ever fought. They are unbelievably flexible. They come from a place in a world quite different from ours. In the West, you can choose one path. You can say, ‘This is what I am going to do,’ and you can go there. In places like Afghanistan only a mad person would choose one path. A sensible person has several options and walks several paths at any time. The Taliban manage to skip from one to another very quickly, which makes them a very flexible enemy which changes its patterns and its shapes as it needs to. There are people who fight with the Taliban who will stop fighting with the Taliban if there are other options. Again, this is because the people themselves will change paths as required. This is not a form of corruption, nor a form of disloyalty. It is a cultural pattern which comes from a country which is so harsh that you cannot survive with one goal; you need several layers at once. I think they are beginning to come to terms with the Western way of thinking in Afghanistan, but it makes for a very interesting place generally. I am running out of time. I would like to keep going, because it is an extraordinary place with extraordinary people, but my time has finished. (Time expired)

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am one of the few folk here who opposed this war bitterly. Before I talk about that I want to tell you how much I admire our troops. They fight with courage, they fight with honour and they fight with morality. To lose 21 and have 156 wounded—and, being a doctor, I know when they come home how many more will be emotionally injured—is an absolute tragedy. I have heard many people say why we went into the war in 2001. I want everyone to know that I support that reason. But it is now 2010, and you have to ask yourself: why the hell are we still there? I am telling you: it is because we are crazy. The No. 1 reason given is the American alliance, and the No. 2 reason is that we have to look after the population, that we have civil duties and that we have to make sure that al-Qaeda has gone.

Let me tell you the problem. The Dutch have pulled out—they are smart. The Canadians are going to pull out next year. The Americans are reducing their troops next year; so are the British. The Americans now really know they cannot win this war. Obama himself knows that. Vice President Joe Biden acknowledges that this war is unwinnable. McChrystal was removed because he was too light on the civilian population and lost too many American lives. Petraeus has gone in. He is heavier and he will lose fewer American lives, but the collateral damage in killing the civilian population will increase dramatically.

That is all very good—but for what? What do we aim to gain? Let me tell you what we have in the presence on the ground. I will tell you about two people I know who have fought in Afghanistan and today have influence in Afghanistan at a very high level. Before I tell you that, there are a few hundred—I do not know the exact number—SAS special fighters. Some of them I know. Some of them are friends of my son. They are certainly the friends of the person I am going to talk about. These guys love to go to war. I know them. They love war. This is what we train them to do, and they are damn good at it. I love them. They are warlords. They fight, and they are fighting tough people. But I will come back to that in a second.

The second mob we have are training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army. These are the most hopeless bunch of critters that God ever put on the planet, and I will tell you why: they are not the cream of the population, because those people are already working for the warlords. Every warlord has an army. Every drug dealer has an army. Karzai has armies. His brother is the biggest poppy grower in the whole of Afghanistan. They cut deals to get the poppies out through Nimruz province into Iran to sell to your kids. I would have bought the stuff and turned it into morphine or papaverine—legitimate drugs. Unfortunately, Karzai and company—the drug lords and the warlords—have got it all tied up. Here we are, teaching the 4th Brigade how to fight. The warlords fought the Soviet army and killed 100,000 of them. What the heck are we deluding ourselves with?

Let me tell you about the two people I know so well. One is an ex-SAS, and I cannot mention his name. I will call him G for the sake of it. He was just recently in Afghanistan and is back now in Australia. He is a special operative who works for himself, so when I tell you the places he has been you do not need to have a war with Pakistan, like Bob Katter suggests. He has been in every province as a special ex-SAS operative now in security technology, from Oruzgan to Kandahar to Helmand to Nimruz, across into Pakistan and up into Waziristan. He cuts deals with different people there to try to save lives. When I rang him last Saturday to get an update on how things are going, he said it is the most futile war he has ever seen. This guy has been in Iraq. If I mention too many places, people might know who he is, so I will not do that. He has been in South America. He has been in literally every war you can imagine. He is a professional fighter. He is a decent guy but a professional fighter. He knows literally every SAS guy on the ground—and they are good.

When he went across to help cut deals in Pakistan, he went there because we went to get the Taliban to go talk to Karzai, who has the most corrupt government on the face of the planet. The Taliban need to be in this government because we need to exit this as soon as possible with some dignity. So we need representation—forget about democracy—on the ground if we are not going to leave a slaughter yard behind. You can stay there for five generations, but the Taliban are not going anywhere. He said to me that when you cross towards those areas where our boys are trying to stop these people building the IEDs that kill so many of us, you see no fathers. You do not see any brothers. It is obvious why not. We have the best professional teams in history in there, but we are not winning hearts and minds. You cannot send any aid people into this country unless they have military protection or they will be dead in 24 hours. They hate you. You are deluding yourself. You are seen as a foreign, occupying army with different ideologies, with Western principles they do not adhere to and with a religion they find infidel and repugnant. They already have plenty of armies. What are we training armies for? As I said, we could get a couple of warlords who would knock up a better army.

To give you an idea, the last time my friend was there they were teaching them how to use rocket propelled grenades, which are pretty dangerous things. So what did they do? They shot one straight up in the air. It came straight down and killed 30. That is not unusual. When they send them out in the battlefield they generally shoot one another more than they do the enemy. It is because the warlords would have picked them up if they were any good. The drug lords would have picked them up if they were any good. These are what is left over, and most of them desert. The tragedy is that when you send the money in it goes through Karzai and the boys, and the warlords pick up all the Western money. As you have heard, they are getting it out of Iran as well. They are taking it in cash. But these guys on the ground are not getting paid. That is another problem. So they desert.

We are fighting al-Qaeda, but al-Qaeda is an ideology. You cannot stop an ideology by putting guards on a border. That is crazy. G tells me the ASIO blokes over here understand fully. Our threat is not al-Qaeda ideology coming back into Afghanistan; our threat is probably home grown—right here. So the fight against this so-called ideology is not going to be won with guns and border protection; it is going to be by being very careful with what we have back home.

Now I want to tell you about a Taliban fighter who used to work for me for a little while. You should go have a look at some of his work. He sculpted a big eagle for me—a giant eagle for Aquila—because I was a megalomaniac and owned wineries before I learnt how much money you lose! He did a beautiful job. He also carved Joseph in jarrah for the Catholic cathedral. His name is Mehdi Mohammadi. He has gone back to Kabul in Afghanistan for a short time. They tend to grab his brother every time he goes there and take a lot of money from him, because it is all corrupt. But that is life.

How he started as a sculptor and a painter—as are other members of his family—is that his uncle and his cousin made a beautiful sculpture of a human being. The Taliban caught them and had a problem with that so they killed his uncle and his cousin. He was conscripted—and conscription there is not waiting for your marble or ball to be picked; it is being told, ‘We’re going to shoot you if you don’t cooperate’. He was probably lucky because he was wounded within a year or so of that and they left him in a cave to die. He was one of the guys who got out of Afghanistan as a boatperson, came to this country and survived—with a bit of scarring. He is now an Australian citizen and you can look at his works, as I said. He has changed his name to Medhi Rasulle.

He has told me of the lunacy of what we are doing there. He is about as religious as I am. He is an incredible guy—he had no English when he came to this country but in a short time he could speak fluent English. He is an absolute genius when it comes to sculpting. However, Afghanistan is a land of tribes—it is not a country where people are identified as Afghans although they might call themselves that. It is a land of tribes ruled by tribal warlords, some of them drug dealers and some of them Taliban or whatever you want to call them. We chase them to Pakistan and they come back.

We all know this war is lost, except for the people who have never been there. G knows it is lost. Mehdi knows it is lost. What we need is to get some government that is not a democratic government but that is representative of the tribes, the warlords and all the others there so there will be some stability when we leave. When should we leave? If we cannot do that in six months I think we are wasting our time. Forget the 4th Brigade—they have enough warlords and armies to take on whatever they want, but they just do not have the will to fight. If they do not want to fight for us then let us get our people home.

I turn now to the American alliance. I suggest my American friends pull their troops out as soon as possible, as soon as we can establish that. They are already getting NATO to fly people out of Pakistan—that is, the Taliban top leaders. Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, an organisation of masterminds in Pakistan, felt some threats and caught some of the more rational of them—they are not all raving lunatics; there are a lot who are, but not all. They arrested them in Pakistan to stop them cooperating and coming back to form a government with Karzai because Pakistan has some interest in what happens in Afghanistan, as do Iran and the central Asian republics. That is a tragedy and every day we leave it we are going to lose more people in a pointless war that has to be sorted out by a different form of government to what we have now, remembering it is going to be corrupt and it is going to have warlords. It has plenty of armies and it has plenty of police forces. The ones we are training are not good quality and I can assure you they will be working for the Taliban, the local drug lord or the local warlord because that is where the money is. All the money that we have sent gets siphoned off to those guys, not to the guys we are training.

So let us get the heck out of there, let us get sensible and let us listen to people who have been to all the southern provinces recently because they are realistic guys. They know about war and they know how to win or lose battles. Let us come home and try not to leave a bloodbath behind. Let us get whatever sort of government we can and let us go back and deal with them.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House and share my thoughts on the current International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan. In April this year I had the unique opportunity of participating in a Defence Force program. Along with a small group of my fellow parliamentarians from both sides of the House, I spent eight days in the Middle East at a joint service facility at Al Minhad, which is a staging ground for many of those who are going on to serve our country in Afghanistan. We had the opportunity to spend time with the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, from the newest member on deployment to Australia’s head of the Middle East operations, Major General John Cantwell. You cannot help but be touched by their professionalism, their dedication to duty and their commitment to our nation’s objectives in that region.

During this parliamentary debate, our thoughts and our prayers must be with the families and friends of the 21 Australian soldiers who have lost their lives thus far in Afghanistan. I think we owe it to all those men who have made the ultimate sacrifice to make a real contribution to this debate. Their deaths are a sobering reminder of just how difficult and dangerous life is in Afghanistan and why this conflict should be in the forefront of our thinking. Our servicemen and women deserve our full support.

It is well known that in 2001 Australia decided to support the United States and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as a part of its war on terror. Our role as part of the alliance objectives was to ensure that Afghanistan was not a safe place for terrorists. However, given Australia’s role as part of the coalition of the willing and commitments to the invasion of Iraq, Australia drew down on our forces in Afghanistan in 2002 to assist our efforts in that theatre.

Over the ensuing period between our deployments, significant changes occurred. Given the nature of the foreign insurgency in Afghanistan—and now with almost clearly definable supply routes into and out of Pakistan which is somewhat evidenced by the frequency of the US air strikes in that region—one could conclude that Afghanistan is at present not being used as a training ground for al-Qaeda or indeed a safe haven for terrorists. Clearly no-one would want to have that accomplishment reversed. In response to these developments, in 2006 Australia’s role in Afghanistan changed from predominantly a combat role to a much larger reconstruction effort in Oruzgan province. In 2008 our focus shifted again and the Defence Force took on a more mentoring role for the Afghan National Army as well as local law enforcement.

Regardless of the original reason for entering the conflict in 2001, which was to support the US led effort to help deny sanctuary to terrorists, I am fully supportive of Australia’s current role in helping to restore stability for the Afghan people. These people live under threats from many quarters. The ones we typically focus on come from the Taliban and their allies, but many Afghans suffer equally from predatory police and corrupt officials—regrettably, people we regard as our allies. It is unlikely that there will ever be a ‘mission accomplished’ pronouncement in this particular theatre, but I think the Australian people are entitled to know what degree of success would warrant a draw-down of Australian assistance—in other words, what would determine an Australian exit strategy. I believe that a premature withdrawal would hasten the overall breakdown of stability in Afghanistan, be completely unacceptable to our allies and would waste the investment already made.

Clearly, complete withdrawal is some time off, but in the meanwhile, if we are to be successful in Afghanistan, we and our alliance partners must be making it abundantly clear to the Afghan government that we expect them to step up to the plate and make significant efforts in respect of good governance in their country. Unless we have substantial improvement in policing and law enforcement, for instance, it is hard to see how the situation in Afghanistan will change once Australia and the other alliance partners withdraw. While terrorism may be denied a revival, I genuinely fear what might develop in its place. For starters, Afghanistan is currently the world’s largest producer of opium for the heroin trade. Last year I was a member of a parliamentary delegation reviewing serious and organised crime. We met with the principal officers of leading law enforcement agencies, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Europol. Both of these agencies advised us in no uncertain terms that Afghanistan is still the key source country, producing around 900 tonnes of heroin per year, or 92 per cent of global production.

It has been said many times in this place that the purpose of our involvement in Afghanistan is to provide a stable and secure environment for its people. If we are serious about meeting that objective, we need to work with the Afghan forces to counter the export of illicit drugs, which now involves various international organised crime syndicates. While 92 per cent of the world’s opium comes out of Afghanistan, less than two per cent is seized there. This is a clear incentive for organised crime to invest in that region as there are huge profit margins to be exploited. I know there is much debate about the crop and its value to the local community, but I seriously question our practice of trying to intercept drugs once they have left Afghanistan. It is essential that part of our security strategy be addressing this problem in country.

Besides the terrible social, economic and personal effect that heroin has on society, the drug trade in Afghanistan has severe consequences on what Australia and its allies are trying to achieve in that region. In 2009 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime released a report entitled Addiction, crime and insurgency: the transnational threat of Afghan opium. In that report, the Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa, noted:

It has become difficult to distinguish clearly between terrorist movements, insurgencies and organized crime … since their tactics and funding sources are increasingly similar.

It can now be said that all actors involved in destabilizing Afghanistan are directly or indirectly linked to the drug economy. Insurgents’ access to the opium economy translates into increased military capabilities and prolongs conflict. Opiates also fuel insecurity across Afghanistan as groups fight for control of routes and territory.

According to that report, between 2005 and 2008 the Taliban made $450 million to $600 million in total just from taxing opium cultivation and trade in Afghanistan. The link between organised crime and terrorist insurgency is now absolutely beyond doubt. To target one without the other simply does not make any sense at all. How can we have our soldiers patrol through the poppy fields in Oruzgan, or other areas, knowing full well that that crop is destined for the illicit drug trade, which in turn is going to be used to fund insurgent terrorist efforts against our troops, our objectives and the future security of the Afghan nation? Indeed, in the West we should ask: how long can parents be expected to support a war in Afghanistan if their sons and daughters are dying at the end of a needle? Clearly we must develop and implement better measures to prevent a community reliance on the illicit drug trade which acts to undermine any attempt to institute good governance in Afghanistan.

Besides our commitment to train and mentor the entire 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army, we currently have 28 Australian Federal Police officers in Afghanistan to help train and mentor officers of the Afghan National Police. In Afghanistan, police are in a far more precarious position than the military. For every Army casualty, there are five police deaths. It is an extraordinary statistic. The AFP’s work is important and it deserves our full support, but in truth it is only scratching the surface in a corruption-ridden country. The AFP’s job is particularly difficult given the low literacy and education levels and the fact that corruption is widespread, not just in the police. According to the latest survey produced by Integrity Watch Afghanistan, earlier this year, corruption is rampant and has become more entrenched in all areas of Afghan life. This report is a damning critique when the citizens of Afghanistan regard their police and judiciary as the most corrupt of the country’s institutions. That is a powerful reason why people might be tempted to turn back to the Taliban—simply for justice. The entrenched corruption within law enforcement agencies certainly derails the fundamental gains Afghanistan has achieved since the end of 2001.

Unless great inroads are made by the Afghan government to effect anticorruption measures, the mentoring and training AFP officers are providing presently will probably be wasted. Australia and its alliance forces may well find themselves defeating the insurgents; however, if corruption continues to flourish within the police and the broader justice sector, we will not be successful in our objective of advancing the security and wellbeing of the Afghan people. Replacing the tyranny of an ideologically driven Taliban by profit driven criminals may be of little consequence for the ordinary folk who want a future for themselves and their families.

In closing, I support Australia’s objectives in Afghanistan to deny sanctuary to the terrorists and to work towards stabilising the country for the benefit of its people. I recognise and pay tribute to the 2,104 allied soldiers, including 21 Australians, who have given their lives serving the objectives of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. As well, I recognise the 40,000 innocent Afghan men, women and children who have died during this conflict. We owe it to them to at least be true to our objectives. However, I cannot see how we can fully achieve our objectives if there is to be a reliance on a burgeoning illicit drug trade in Afghanistan which sustains both organised crime and terrorist insurgency. If we genuinely care for the people of Afghanistan, attacking corruption and promoting good governance within our sphere of influence is just as important as our stated military objectives.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing nice about war. In this particular case, there is nothing nice for Afghanistan and nothing nice for Australia. Going to war is never a step taken lightly by any responsible government, but in our imperfect world there are times when that is what nations must do for just and honourable reasons. That is the case in Afghanistan. Through our elected government, we as a nation made a decision in 2001 that we must go to war in Afghanistan. We are still there. Our role has changed but, importantly, it has enjoyed bipartisan support. Now, in this parliament, members and senators have an opportunity and an obligation. They have an opportunity to express a point of view and an obligation to construct a debate that taken together inform and educate Australians as to our role and our objectives and allows them to make an informed judgment on this costly commitment. It is costly financially but, most importantly, it is costly in terms of lives and the injuries—physical and mental—to so many young, serving Australians. Over the years, we have seen success in effectively defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and have moved on to a role of mentoring, training and partnering Afghani troops on operations.

I have listened carefully as this debate has progressed. I do not intend today to repeat many of the arguments that have been put so eloquently by other speakers in this debate. But in order to assess our role we must look at where Afghanistan stands today. As we do so, it becomes clear that there are other nations which exhibit the very problems that we find in Afghanistan—or worse. As we look at the Horn of Africa we can see failed states exhibiting little or no rule of law often used and manipulated by international criminal organisations or used as havens for terrorist training and operations. This raises a question in some minds. If we are not prepared to commit troops on every occasion where these circumstances exist, why should we stay in Afghanistan?

There is a lot to trouble us about today’s Afghanistan—the fact that the government does not control large parts of the country; the clear suggestions of corruption within the Afghan government; the religious extremism of the Taliban, and the acceptance of it by those who work with them; and the sheer scale of opium production and the link between heroin and the Taliban. Each of these matters could on their own encourage some form of intervention—civil or military, as the case may be. But the question of when a nation-state should interfere in the government and politics of a sovereign nation-state and even consider military action is a vexed one and, for the purposes of this debate, may be the wrong question. Why? Because we are already there. This debate serves little purpose if it is merely to be a retrospective or an exercise in comparative decision making. We must not forget that the original commitment to this war enjoyed almost universal support at home and internationally under United Nations mandate with resolution No. 1386.

So where are we today? As the Leader of the Opposition said in his contribution to this debate, our objective is to allow Afghans to choose what they think is right for them. We are doing that through a quite specific role, assisting in developing the Afghan National Army through embedded partnering. As one soldier said to me, ‘That means a combination of training and significantly partnering, going into battle with our Afghan colleagues and learning to trust each other.’ That is quite different from just training or just fighting. In the civil aid sphere there has been an ongoing debate as to the extent to which advisers should just advise or train by example, by working side by side with those they wish to train. I am told that partnering—living, working and fighting side by side, Australians together with the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army—is showing results. In the long term, that will result in an Afghani brigade with an Australian ethos. Our legacy to the 4th Brigade will be Australian military culture based on teamwork, courage and a shared version of Australia’s great quality of mateship.

I am told that our troops have a real respect for these Afghan soldiers. They are genuinely fighting for their nation’s survival and their families’ future, notwithstanding the threats and reprisals. We encourage these soldiers to come and train side by side with our dedicated officers and soldiers. We cannot train them without standing side by side with them in training and in battle. By doing this we earn their trust. We cannot abandon them now. So, by our intervention, we have started a process that has encouraged Afghans to take a stand against terrorism and against corruption. The signs are positive but we must stay the course.

The member for Bowman, speaking from his personal experience, spoke movingly of the hope that our presence provides. It is a hope built on a desire for a society where people have a say in how they live their lives, where women might be educated, where peace and security might prevail. This does not mean that we should seek to replicate Australian society in this country. To do so would be the height of arrogance. We are fighting to create the environment to let the Afghan people decide. If that is to happen, our role is to help them gain the capacity to provide security, to help them build the environment that allows people a say, not just the warlords. But that will not be easy. We should never understate that challenge or its difficulty. Equally, a democratically elected government in a safe and secure Afghanistan will often make decisions with which we will strongly disagree. Corruption will exist, but if through our police assistance we can help in that regard, so much the better. However, the acknowledgement by President Karzai of cash payments to his office from Iran raises most serious concerns. We should not ignore it, but our role is to help build the capacity to deal with it. We are doing that through the presence of the Australian Federal Police, with a particular emphasis on Oruzgan. Slowly but surely we can help Afghanistan build a better future.

Finally, I come back to the question of heroin production in Afghanistan. That heroin is a curse on our society is an understatement. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, opium production in Afghanistan in 2010 covered some 123,000 hectares. Ninety-six per cent of that production took place in the southern and western regions, including Oruzgan province, where our troops are today. Eradication programs have not worked and there is a clear link between lack of security and opium cultivation. The UN points out that gross income from opium per hectare outstrips wheat by a ratio of six to one—US$4,900 to US$770 per hectare.

As reported in the Australian in an article by Sally Neighbour on 21 May, the US State Department’s narcotics control strategy report, released in March, refers to the symbiotic relationship between the insurgency and narcotics trafficking. This presents a serious challenge, but to simply destroy crops without providing an alternative economic solution has to date been clearly unsuccessful. The provision of support for alternative crops and the provision of microfinance and venture capital will all play a role in eradicating this scourge. It is arguable from the UN report that a secure and stable environment will provide the biggest factor in this process. It is encouraging to note that it also showed that the two major reasons for never cultivating opium or stopping cultivation are that it is banned by government or that it is against Islam.

As I traverse this difficult and troubling debate, I readily acknowledge the difficult nature of the discussion. It is not easy and it will not get easier. More fine, brave Australians will almost inevitably lose their lives. I have seen the anguish and despair on the faces of the families of those who have already lost their lives. Those tears and that pain must never leave our minds as we discuss this issue. But, as so many family members have said, ‘Do not let their sacrifice be in vain.’ So I must clearly state that I support our ongoing commitment to Afghanistan. I do so in the strong view that we must stay the course. But that does not mean that, in deciding to fight on, we should ignore discussion and diplomacy. I noted the comments of the member for Lyne and the member for Bowman and,  indeed, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, about the need to engage the Taliban.

In Europe we see the emergence of the hard fascist and racist right. They stand for election and win seats. They are not banned. That does not mean that their views are correct. In his article, Alexander Downer referred to the Bougainville conflict and the necessity of engaging with the Bougainville Revolutionary Army and including them in the political process. I have met a number of the BRA and rebel government leaders. My husband acted for them in the Bougainville peace process—a working example of, as many have put it, finding peace by peaceful means. So I agree with the former foreign minister. As we hold our course, as we help Afghanistan build its military and civil capacity, as our troops wage war, we should be open to diplomacy and political negotiations—not at any price, not at cost to those Afghanis who share our commitment to democracy—and willing to talk.

As I said in my maiden speech:

Sadly the remoteness of this war and the 15-second-grab nature of television news mean that many Australians do not see that reality, do not see the pain and suffering.

They see war by television, close enough to touch yet far enough away that it is just not seen. Hopefully this debate will shine some light on the hard decisions that must be made in our far from perfect world.

Let me finish as I started. War is a terrible thing. There is nothing nice about it. There is pain and grief on all sides, particularly for the civilian population. So I must again pay tribute to our troops: 6RAR battle group for the work well done and 5RAR battle group for the work they will undertake. Equally I must pay tribute to our Australian Federal Police, DFAT staff and aid workers—all brave Australians who are all too often overlooked as their courageous work is unseen. As a nation we will, we must, stand behind you as you carry the responsibility for our decisions and as you confront the often tragic results of war. To go to this war is not your decision—it is your nation’s, and you go without complaint. You go to war, to this most dangerous place, for your country. I salute you and I thank you.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge and congratulate the Greens for their role in initiating this debate on Afghanistan, which I believe is serving an important national objective. It is focusing media and public attention on Australia’s role in Afghanistan: why are we there, what are we seeking to achieve and how long are we going to be there? These things ought to be debated, and the nation is richer for this debate. Indeed, it is my view that we should not send troops overseas to war without parliamentary authority or approval. We should amend the Defence Act to require parliamentary approval for the sending of Australian soldiers to war overseas other than in the event of a direct attack on Australia. This parliamentary scrutiny would oblige the executive to provide hard evidence of the threat to Australia, taking us beyond slogans and rhetoric and greatly reducing the chances of another debacle like Iraq. Given the usual complexion of the Senate, this would generally mean the government of the day would have to secure the agreement of one or other non-government political parties to pass its motion. This is as it should be. Going to war is a major matter. It should be a matter of bipartisan, or preferably multipartisan, commitment.

I have reached this conclusion because of my strong aversion to violence. I believe that attacking others can only be justified in self-defence, either because others have attacked you or are about to. It is a basic legal concept and it holds true for relations between countries just as much as it does for relations between human beings.

Let me make it clear at once that I do not have any difficulty with the United States response post September 11, 2001 in Afghanistan. It was clear that the organisers of the September 11 attacks were in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan refused to do anything to capture them or to hand them over. It gave every impression of being in league with them. It was reasonable for the United States to conclude that if it did not take action in Afghanistan it would be subjected to further attacks. But if an attack has not yet taken place, who decides whether a threat is real and whether the doctrine of self-defence can be justified? Parliament should decide. Safety in numbers—‘In the multitude of councillors there is wisdom’.

Now we are in Afghanistan. What now? There is no getting around just what a tough issue this is. I read over the last weekend some of the comments from family members of some of our soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan—young lives cut short in outrageously abrupt and barbaric ways. Some family members strongly believe Australia must stay on in Afghanistan. One said:

I would feel that it was a waste of our son’s life if we pulled out. If you’re going in you need to see it through. I think our boys are making a difference and if the politicians all work together this can happen.

Another said:

To just pull out and say it’s your problem, you handle it, I just think exposes a vulnerable population to the Taliban. Those who have died trying to support an initiative would have died in vain.

Powerful arguments indeed, delivered with the unique credibility and authority which attaches to a suffering loved one. But then there are family members who say this:

I think the best thing they could do is pull our boys out and let them go home to their families. How many people have got to die before you say it’s not in vain?

Or this:

It’s a bloody waste of time and effort. My personal thinking is call it quits and come home … I would hate to see any more of our soldiers being killed.

There are clearly very powerful arguments both ways. How did we get into such a difficult situation? Australia’s commitment began in October 2001, the month after the terrorist attack on New York’s Twin Towers. But the initial success of the mission in Afghanistan in overthrowing the Taliban and its repulsive leader, Mullah Omar, gave way to inattention. I try hard these days to avoid the sins of political partisanship and to assess the merits of ideas and policies without regard to their origin. But it is hard to look at where we are in Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that this mission was done grave, perhaps irreparable, damage by former US President George W Bush and his Republican administration. They shifted the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. This was a terrible mistake. It detracted from the critically important struggle to capture al-Qaeda leaders.

Furthermore, one of the major reasons for the failure of nation building in Afghanistan and Pakistan was the failure to deal with the issue of drugs. Developing alternative crops and livelihoods was never a serious part of US policy, and debate circled around aerial or ground eradication. In those critical days in 2003, a few thousand more US troops on the ground, more money for reconstruction and a speedier rebuilding of the Afghan army and police may well have turned the tide against the Taliban and enhanced support of the population for the government. Afghan leaders ruefully suggested that the war in Iraq might have diverted US resources away from Afghanistan, but the George W Bush administration ignored their pleas.

When the commander of United States and international troops in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, took over in June, he said:

I don’t think that anyone is under any illusion that we’re going to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland in five years.

That is fair enough, but the fact is that during the critical years post the overthrow of the Taliban no serious effort was made to turn Afghanistan into a Switzerland. The Taliban was allowed back into the equation and local people became uncertain as to how serious the United States and Western nations were. And the views of the locals are critical in this matter. Local attitudes can be difficult to accurately assess. It has been reported that soldiers are welcomed to a village during the day and praised for their efforts in Afghanistan, only to hear of the same village giving help to Taliban fighters under cover of dark. This might smack of opportunism on the part of Afghan people, but the truth is would we or anyone else be any different given the same circumstances? After all, the penalties for being on the losing side in Afghanistan are savage and extreme. Who can really blame them for having two-bob each way.

The war is now in its deadliest year. Over 580 of the US led International Security Assistance Force have been killed this year. Over 150,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are fighting a Taliban insurgency that has steadily expanded. I have seen countries bogged down in unwinnable wars before. It happened to the US and us in Vietnam and it happened to the US and us again in Iraq. Indeed, it happened in Afghanistan before, to the Russians. I have come to the conclusion that this war is unwinnable from my own observation of the conflict over nine years now—longer than the Second World War—and I do not want us to go down the failed roads of Vietnam and Iraq. I have also come to this conclusion from reading the work of senior military experts. Major-General Alan Stretton served in World War II, Korea and Malaya, and in Vietnam, where he was the Australia chief of staff in 1969 and 1970. He says the Afghan population ‘now sees the war as a foreign invasion of its country’.

Similarly, Brigadier Mark Smethurst, one of Australia’s top combat soldiers, has stated that the Taliban tactics have ‘overwhelmed’ the coalition and they ‘cannot be defeated by military means’. He says that we cannot afford to give the Taliban a boost in nuclear armed Pakistan, and I absolutely agree that our strategy in the region must be very much geared to stopping Pakistan falling into the hands of fundamentalists. But in a reflection of the complexity of the politics of the region, Australian National University Professor Amin Saikal has said that Pakistanis are actually backing the Taliban in Afghanistan. Professor Saikal says the US should take the lead in an international conference under US auspices to find a regional consensus on Afghanistan amongst its neighbours. He says that so far no-one has done that. Professor Saikal also observes that the strong presidential system put in place in Kabul must be changed because Afghanistan is too socially divided to make the strong presidential system work.

I believe we need a clear exit strategy from Afghanistan. I agree with former Australian Defence Force chief Peter Gration, who has stated that Australian troops in Afghanistan need an exit strategy based on clear and measurable objectives. General Gration commanded the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993. He said:

Having come this far, we cannot unilaterally walk away, but we should not consider having an open-ended commitment there …

We’ve got to have an exit strategy based on a series of measurable outcomes.

He said this could include some clearer benchmarks in areas such as the security situation in Oruzgan, the self-sufficiency of local government, the strength of the economy and the effectiveness of the Afghan army and security forces.

Let me make it clear that in advocating an exit strategy I am not advocating a unilateral withdrawal. I am advocating that we develop an exit strategy in concert with the United States and the other participants in the International Security Assistance Force. I am a firm supporter of the defence alliance with the United States. Moreover, I do not see any reason why consideration for the views of others need act as a barrier to an exit strategy. US President Barack Obama wants American troops to start withdrawing from next July. The Afghanistan conference recently held in Kabul set a timetable for a transition of security arrangements to Afghan authorities by 2014. While that seems to me to be a long way away, and I would like to see a more rapid time frame adopted, the direction is clear. International forces in Afghanistan do not aspire to be there indefinitely, and neither should we. Surely Afghanistan is not some kind of Hotel California where you can check out any time you like but you can never leave. Surely there is an end point beyond which we are not required to continue risking young Australian lives.

Let me turn to two other relevant issues. Clearly our presence in Afghanistan is all about making Australia and the rest of the world safe and secure from terrorist attacks carried out by religious extremists. It seems obvious to me that a clear stumbling block to building a world safe from such attacks is the intransigence of the Iranian regime and its outrageous leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Just a few weeks ago Mr Ahmadinejad made bizarre allegations, unsupported by a shred of evidence, that the United States was itself behind the 11 September 2001 attacks. The Iranian regime has a dreadful track record of suppression of women and of human rights, of looking to develop nuclear weapons and of supporting terrorist groups abroad. I do not think that we should attack the Iranian regime; surely this is the lesson of Vietnam and Iraq. But I do not think we should be supporting it either, and yet this is what we and the United States have been doing by outlawing and branding as terrorists a key Iranian opposition group—the PMOI, known in Iran as the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, or MEK. The Iranian opposition should receive our support and the terrorist listing, which has been withdrawn in England and in Europe, should be withdrawn here.

I also want to make some remarks about Australia’s system of military justice. It has been the subject of some public debate recently, with a number of Australian soldiers facing charges following civilian deaths in Afghanistan. There are two kinds of people in the world: there are people who were there and people who were not. Those who were not present have no knowledge of it and would do well to express no views about the guilt or innocence of those whose conduct is now in question. I saw an opinion poll which asked whether Australian soldiers should ever be prosecuted over the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan. I was surprised that the question was asked and even more surprised that the majority of my fellow Australian citizens said no. I am compelled to contest this answer most vigorously. It was established by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals, after all the brutality and atrocities of the Second World War, which so debased humanity, that war is not a place where anything goes, where civilians are fair game. For example, if army tanks rolled into a city and troops from the safety of that tank were to shoot dead a small unarmed girl standing quietly by the roadside, surely this would be a war crime. Surely it would not matter what the nationality of the troops or that of the small girl was. So I urge all concerned to let the military justice system do its work without hindrance or gratuitous advice. There is no reason to date for a want of confidence in its capacity to arrive at just decisions and outcomes.

Finally, let me express my personal thanks and those of my electorate for the heroism of our soldiers in what we all know are dreadful circumstances. Their bravery and courage, their hardship and privations, are hard for us to comprehend and certainly impossible for us to properly repay. But we sleep better at night for their willingness to defend us and they are often in our thoughts.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak tonight to speak on Australia’s role in Afghanistan and, most importantly, to give my unequivocal support to Australia’s role in Afghanistan and to pay tribute to the amazing work being done by our very brave soldiers. I start by saying that I am neither a hawk nor a dove. I do not favour war as the only means to bring about a result, nor do I think it morally wrong to fight another for what you truly believe in. I do believe that, after taking expert advice and evaluating all options, once the decision is made to act it needs to be with the full force available, in particular to mitigate collateral damage and bring about as rapid a solution as possible. Most importantly, I do believe in staying the course and completing the job you set out to do. I would never support cutting and running. The price that has been paid in Australian lives alone is just too great to do that.

My ongoing support for Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan is based primarily on four things. It is based, first, on expert advice and briefings provided to me in my former role as shadow minister for defence science and personnel and assisting the shadow minister for defence on our role and the outcomes being achieved; secondly, on those fine men and women I have met while visiting Australian defence forces in Tarin Kowt, Kandahar and at Al Minhad air base; thirdly, on the many discussions I have had with my own constituents who serve the nation at RAAF Base Williamtown and the families who have been left behind as our men and women deploy onto active service; and, fourth, on my belief that we are blessed with a magnificent freedom and democracy that others should be able to enjoy.

In Australia, we take for granted our peace. Our children do not know what it is like to grow up in civil war, under a dictatorship or with the threat of a regime which crushes personal freedoms and expression. For that, we are extremely blessed. However, I support our involvement in Afghanistan also because we do not and cannot fully understand the oppression of others. The war in Afghanistan is not a war to be won quickly or easily. This is not a war of sovereign states versus sovereign state. This is not a war fought against an opponent who abides by the Geneva convention. This is a war against insurgents who know no rules. This is a war against opponents who are willing to sacrifice civilians and children in order to protect themselves. This is a war to say no to terrorism and yes to the freedoms and democracy we know as Australians.

My children probably would not remember where they were on 11 September 2001, as they were only nine and 10 years of age at the time. However, September 11 was when the innocent were lost and when terrorism first became known to many. September 11, 2001 is a day that will live in infamy for all decent citizens of the world. The images that flashed across our screens were almost unbelievable. It was impossible to imagine the kind of evil that could conceive such a plan. Fifteen Australians were amongst the almost 3,000 people who were killed that day. Sadly, many nations were personally touched by this reprehensible act of cowardice. On that day, President Bush spoke to his people and to the rest of the world and said:

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.

Although 11 September 2001 was a day of unspeakable sadness, it also managed to deliver the very best facets of human spirit. I remember well the grief and anger of Australians, a grief and anger that quickly morphed into a resolve and a commitment to ensure that it never happened again. Beyond our nation, the world stood as one and said ‘Never again’. Now, more than ever, we must remember those words ‘Never again’.

Just a year later, on 12 October 2002, 88 more Australians lost their lives in the first Bali bombings. Once again, we were reminded that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. Once again, we were reminded that there is a price for peace. The difficulty in measuring the success of this deployment to Afghanistan is the fact that success is gauged by a lack of terrorist events. There is no tangible measure of success. The difficulty in recognising and, therefore, acknowledging the success of our deployment should not detract from our resolve.

The fact that al-Qaeda has been unable to make repeat attacks on the scale of 9-11, Bali or the London bombings proves that it has been contained. Its leadership has been splintered and dispersed. Its ability to organise acts of terror has been nullified by virtue of the coalition’s presence in the region. To withdraw now would be to ensure that the nurseries and incubators of terrorism would once again be open for business. Furthermore, to withdraw now would be to return Afghanistan and its people to suffer alone under the Taliban. And, importantly, the sacrifice of 21 Australians would have been in vain. That is why I will never cut and run with my support for my people.

The troops themselves are the most worthy of consultation in this debate. Not only have I spoken broadly to our troops across the nation as I visited their bases or as I went on military training programs with them but I was fortunate enough to spend a week with them in Tarin Kowt, Kandahar and Al Minhad as part of the ADF parliamentary exchange program. I met with Australian Defence Force personnel, Australian Defence civilians and civilians who have joined the effort in Afghanistan. I listened to them speak firsthand about the pride they have in their achievements and the importance of their work. Their focus is on three things: training and mentoring the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan, strengthening the Afghan National Police and conducting operations to disrupt insurgent operations and supply routes. I quite often shared a brew at Poppy’s in Camp Holland while I listened to the troops speak with pride about the work they do and the real differences they make, which gave me an understanding that I could comprehend.

They know that they have contributed to the progress in Afghanistan’s development over the past nine years, which has seen a dramatic increase in school enrolments, from around one million in 2001, none of whom were girls, to over six million today, one-third of whom are girls, and a significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime but are now extended to around 85 per cent of the people.

Our troops have contributed to the identification and management of over 39,000 community based infrastructure projects, such as wells, clinics, roads and schools, in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan through the Afghanistan led Afghan National Solidarity Program, and to the rehabilitation of over 10,000 kilometres of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers through the National Rural Access Program.

We have helped to install democracy, which has seen two elections for the lower house of the parliament since 2001—and, importantly, around 27 per cent of the seats in the lower house, and one-sixth of the seats in the upper house, are reserved for female members. It is a democracy with significant powers, including the right to reject or approve draft laws, to hold votes of no confidence in a government minister and reject cabinet nominees.

The Afghanis now have a freedom of the press. People have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. They have a freedom to discuss publicly issues that were previously off limits, such as human rights abuses and women’s rights.

I would like to personally thank Major Jason Eltham for being our escort officer and providing such a strong insight into the operations of the battlefield. This week I have in the chamber in parliament, as a part of the Australian Defence Force Exchange Program, Captain Steven Towner from the 9th Force Support Unit. He, like many of his mates, saw action in Iraq, and we have discussed unabashed all aspects of service life.

I have also attended the funerals and ramp ceremonies. I have heard firsthand the pleas from families about the importance of honouring the legacy of these brave men by continuing to support their comrades in the work they do towards a free and democratic Afghanistan. I have met some of those men who have lost their lives. I have sat with their families and their friends at funerals. My opinions are therefore based not only on some moral conviction of right or wrong but also on real people.

The very nature of war is struggle, and a war is never going to be simple. It is never going to be innocent; it is never going to be black or white. This war is not just about establishing democracy in Afghanistan. It is about training Afghan security forces to take control of their own country. It is about closing a terrorist breeding ground. It is about sending a message to terrorists that they are not welcome in this country. Prevention is better than cure. A free and democratic Afghanistan is the means by which a rattled but determined and cunning enemy is prevented from starting its rebuilding process. As Major General John Cantwell said recently:

It’s not the time to get the wobbles, it’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and expense and the heartache that’s gone into Afghanistan.

Sadly, injury and loss of life is a part of war, and significant sacrifices have been made. In total, more than 150 Australian soldiers have been wounded since Operation Slipper began, and tragically 21 have been killed in action. We need to remember all of them.

We need to remember their sacrifices: Special Air Service Regiment Sergeant Andrew Russell, a victim of mine detonation in the southern province of Kandahar, killed in action, 16 February 2002; Trooper David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, killed when his ASLAV was struck by an improvised explosive device, 9 October 2007; Sergeant Mathew Locke, from the Special Air Service Regiment, killed by Taliban small arms fire, 25 October 2007; Private Luke Worsley, from 4RAR commando unit, killed in battle with Taliban fighters in Oruzgan province on 23 November 2007; Lance Corporal Jason Marks, 4RAR commando unit, killed in a battle with Taliban fighters in Oruzgan province on 27 April 2008; Signaller Sean McCarthy, from the Special Air Service Regiment, killed after being wounded by an improvised explosive device, 8 July 2008; Lieutenant Michael Fussell, from the 4th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, killed by an improvised explosive device in Oruzgan province on 27 November 2008; Private Gregory Michael Sher, from the 1st Commando Regiment, killed as a result of an indirect rocket attack in Oruzgan province, 4 January 2009; Corporal Mathew Hopkins, a member of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, killed in a fire fight with the Taliban near Tarin Kowt, 16 March 2009; Sergeant Brett Till, from the Incident Response Regiment, killed while trying to defuse an improvised explosive device on 19 March 2009; Private Benjamin Ranaudo, killed when a bomb went off as he and a fellow soldier searched a compound north of Tarin Kowt, 19 July 2009; Sapper Jacob Moerland, of 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment, killed by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in Oruzgan province on 7 June 2010; Sapper Darren Smith, of the same unit, killed by an improvised explosive device on 7 June 2010; Private Benjamin Chuck, Private Timothy Aplin and Private Scott Palmer, all from 2nd Commando Regiment, killed when the helicopter they were in crashed on its way to the mission south of the Australian base at Tarin Kowt on 21 June 2010; Private Nathan Bewes, from 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol in the Chora Valley region of Oruzgan province on 9 July 2010; Trooper Jason Thomas Brown, from the Special Air Service Regiment, killed after being shot during an engagement with insurgents on 14 August 2010; Private Thomas Dale and Private Grant Kirby, from 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, killed by an improvised explosive device while on patrol in the Baluchi Valley, 20 August 2010; and finally—and hopefully the last; let it never happen again—Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, 6th Battalion, killed during an intense firefight with Taliban insurgents in the Deh Rawud region, 24 August 2010.

I sincerely pray that no more names are to be added to that list. As repeated to me by their families, please do not let their sacrifice be in vain. There is more to be done. We must not cut and run. We must honour that sacrifice. But, importantly, we must finish the job we set out to do.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Paterson for that contribution, and welcome Captain Towner to the Main Committee. I hope that you very much enjoy your experience here at Parliament House.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution on the motion to take note of the Prime Minister’s statement on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan by paying tribute to our serving men and women, to those who have been injured—may we look after them well—to those who have paid the ultimate price, with their lives, and to their families that are left behind. May we also look after them well. I would like to give some context to some of the things that have been said in this debate and some of the things that we read in the papers. I will also talk a little about conflict prevention. In World War I, there were about 9.7 million military deaths and 6.8 million civilian deaths. In World War II, there were up to 25 million military deaths and somewhere between 40 million and 52 million civilian deaths. In wars now, from the figures I have found, over 90 per cent of deaths are civilian deaths. Sometimes when the debate is happening and being publicised, we are not so cognisant of these statistics.

I have had quite a number of constituents contact me and speak to me about this issue since I have been the member for Page, and this has increased recently because we are debating the matter here. Some people say that we should leave Afghanistan straightaway. Some people say we have to stay. Some people say that, if we continue to stay there, they will not be able to vote for us. Some people say that, if we do not stay there, they will not be able to vote for us. So people feel very passionate about this issue, as they should. Last year I had occasion to speak at the Bonalbo RSL subbranch. I sat with Tom Hale, who is a World War II veteran and an ex-POW from the Burma railway. I had some very interesting conversations with him. The topic of my talk at the RSL was Afghanistan. I took the opportunity to talk about some of the successes. We often hear a lot about what is wrong, what is not working, the failures, and we do not hear a lot about what is working. I was able to go through some of the things that are working. I was a bit daunted because there was someone there from 6RAR. I will not name him, but he was home on leave from serving in Afghanistan. It was a little bit daunting talking with him in the audience, but he was delightful and I know he serves us well there.

I also have had a conversation with a constituent who is the mother of a serving soldier in Afghanistan, and she feels quite passionate about it. She talked to me about when we will be able to leave and things like that, but at the same time she wants us there and wants the job well done. There is a conflict around it. Like a lot of members, I have been contacted by a whole range of groups from around the country, particularly social justice groups. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, ACFID, the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Pax Christi, Jason Thomas, who is a commentator, and all sorts of people and organisations have contacted us. My local newspapers have been talking about the issue. There was an editorial in the Daily Examiner by David Bancroft, the editor, with the headline ‘Keeping the Peace’. I would like to put on record the last two sentences from an article that Chris Masters wrote:

There is no question that our soldiers should leave Afghanistan, and leave sooner rather than later. But only once the job is done.

That is the overwhelming feeling that comes from the community. That is the commitment of the government and the opposition and the message of most of the comments that have been made in this place.

There is currently talk about whether or not we should talk with the Taliban. My information and experience leads me to the view that we always have to talk to those that we seek to make peace with in some way, whether that be through military or other means. But it should always be done strategically, for some sort of strategic advantage. The Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan was toppled in 2002, but the Taliban are certainly a part of life in Afghanistan. There has been quite a lot of commentary about that recently. I always remember very well what the wonderful President Nelson Mandela said: ‘We don’t make peace with our friends.’ We make it, obviously, with our enemies.

A number of wars in the 1990s ended in negotiated settlement. Negotiated settlement is more than military victory alone. Military victory is one part of it, and a key part, and that is why we have the counterinsurgency. The counterinsurgency came a bit later in Afghanistan, and some people have made some comments about that, but we cannot revisit the past. David Kilcullen’s book Counterinsurgency defines ‘insurgency’ as:

An organised movement aimed at the overthrow of the constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.

‘Counterinsurgency’, which we hear a lot about, is defined as:

An umbrella term that that describes the complete range of measures that governments take to defeat insurgency. These measures may be political, administrative, military, economic, psychological, or informational, and are almost always used in combination.

I think that sums up it up well.

I would like to acknowledge Major Anastasia Roberts, who is in my office as part of the ADF program, for pulling together some of that research for me. I would also like to acknowledge another person in my office, Luke Gosling, who served in the commandos in Afghanistan. So I have had some interesting conversations about Afghanistan in my office this week.

We know also that with counterinsurgency—again it comes out of Kilcullen’s book—there has to be respect for the local people. Their wellbeing has to be put ahead of any other consideration. We have to convince the threatened populations that we are the winning side. We need to develop genuine partnerships. We have to demonstrate that we can protect them and that their best interests are served by cooperating with us.

Afghanistan is a very complex country with complex terrain. It is difficult for the military to operate in a contested political environment, even at the behest of the government and even under the Security Council resolutions under which they operate, and there has been quite a number of them. It is a politically contested environment and therein lie some difficulties. And I have had a wee bit of experience in that particular area. Afghanistan is bordered by a range of countries and it has very porous borders. The country has a long history of conflict, not always of the locals’ making. The city of Kandahar is named after Alexander the Great. This conflict goes back a long way but it also has changing dimensions to it. It can be a very harsh and unyielding country. We know of some of the challenges with what is happening now: it is a difficult land to traverse; there are many peoples; and there are a number of conflicts. Then there is the issue of the resources of the ISAF, with 47 nations contributing to it. That in itself takes some organisation and coordination. There are multilateral development partners, multilateral donors and many other issues. Also, in Afghanistan in south-west Asia there are four of the most important regionally available water resources, and there are issues around that.

One thing I would like to comment on is that there is a Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention—an international one—and I am on the executive of that. I have had teleconferences with women MPs from Afghanistan and also from Pakistan. I have had an opportunity to have some conversations because I chair the subcommittee on women, peace and security of the Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention. At the Kabul conference earlier this year over 70 countries got together to talk about the way forward, cooperation, development partners, civil-military cooperation and all of those key issues. Working with women members of parliament, and others from the countries, we sent an open letter to the participants at the conference. A number of things were addressed in the document and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF WOMEN MPs IN PEACE AND SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN

OPEN LETTER TO THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE KABUL CONFERENCE

The Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention, in light of the upcoming Kabul Conference, call upon the international community and the Afghan Government to encourage and support the participation of women representatives and women in all aspects of the security dialogue from peacebuilding to conflict resolution, from stabilization to developmental aspects in Afghanistan.

It is incumbent upon all delegates of the Kabul Conference to be guided by and inculcate into actions and outcomes, including the conference organization, the SC Resolution 1325.

Stressing the important role that women MPs play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peacebuilding processes, members of parliaments from Afghanistan, and from around the world:

Encourage the equal participation of women MPs and their full involvement in all relevant peace and security processes as well as in various multinational mechanisms for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict efforts and for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security;

Support the increased representation of Afghan women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions, especially concerning conflict prevention and conflict resolution;

Urge the international community and the Afghan government to ensure that the Afghan Plan for Peace and Reintegration (APPR) takes into account all constitutional rights of women and women MPs in Afghanistan;

Calls upon the participants at the Kabul Conference to ensure that the pledges of the international community are not used to undermine basic human rights for women in any way;

Requests the government of Afghanistan to take all necessary measures (including security ones) to ensure women are able to take part in key decision-making and leadership positions as well as supporting their participation in the upcoming parliamentary elections;

Noting a lack of support from the international community for women MPs in Afghanistan, the PN encourages parliamentarians worldwide to come forward and support concerns and demands of the Afghan women including women MPs.

I thank honourable members. It is a very nice letter and a useful contribution to the debate. It has been a very rewarding and interesting experience to have that contact. I will have more contact in December when I will be hosting a conference with some of the women MPs from the region to talk more about peace and security. I managed to get the letter to a range of the countries that participated, including Australia, and also to the Secretary-General’s office. Security Council resolution 1325 mandates that women have to play a very active and key role in all peacemaking efforts where we are trying to work through conflicts. It is easier said than done. But it is an important resolution and one that I work with in this particular area.

I am quite proud of Australia’s contribution. Our ambassador is Paul Foley. I have worked with him before. He is a good ambassador with a great team, and they are working to support all of the efforts. It is not easy for the civilians who work there or for the large number of NGOs that are working there doing great work on the ground. They are all working to help support strengthening the state. State building is not easy. In the debate I hear people talk about it being a corrupt government. Yes, there is corruption, but they speak as if it were abnormal, which it is not. We have to address it, but there is no way that the state of Afghanistan could be a corruption resistant regime overnight. These are things we have to work through. I have also looked at the situation with the elections. When my friend Peter Galbraith left his job there even he said that we have to stay the distance. He left for certain reasons to do with the election.

It takes time. We and the public become impatient. We of course do not like seeing our serving men die in wars, so we become impatient. But it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time to help rebuild a state. (Time expired)

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to compliment the member for Page for her ongoing commitment and dedication to the people of East Timor. I am pleased to rise to speak about Australia’s involvement in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. From the outset I pay tribute to the outstanding performance of our young men and women in the Australian Defence Forces who over the past nine years have proven their dedication and commitment to the mission and have made our country exceptionally proud in doing so. I also acknowledge the sacrifice of the 20 young men who have given their lives in this conflict in the pursuit of bringing peace and security to all Australians. We will never be able to completely repay the debt we owe to these brave men and their families and friends at home.

But it is not the outstanding performance of our Defence Force—for that is surely without question—that has brought this debate to the floor of the House of Representatives. The Australian people deserve to hear from this government what the mission in Afghanistan will entail from this point onwards and what this mission means to our national security. So, why are we in Afghanistan, and what is our mission? While the fall of the Berlin Wall may seem a lifetime ago, the first decade of the 21st century is seared into our consciousness. The dreadful and tragic events of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington DC in 2001 by the al-Qaeda-trained Islamic terrorists were stark illustrations to the world that failed states such as Afghanistan were havens of state-sponsored Islamic terrorism.

In 1996, Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan. Upon the Taliban’s seizing of power, bin Laden forged an alliance between the Taliban and his organisation, al-Qaeda. It has been suggested that the Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections and that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were incorporated into the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Although none of us will be able to erase the events of that day from our memories, it is important to outline that the state-sponsored Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan was essential to the success of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The September 11 attacks against the United States were coordinated by al-Qaeda and involved 19 al-Qaeda-trained Islamic terrorists who hijacked four commercial passenger jets, which were subsequently and deliberately crashed into major state buildings.

Nearly 3,000 victims, along with the 19 terrorists, died in the attacks. According to the New York State Department of Health, 836 responders, including firefighters and police personnel, died responding to the attacks. Among the 2,752 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority. An additional 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of 77 countries. Fifteen Australians were killed in the September 11 attacks.

The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 galvanised the world, including Australia, into supporting military action to bring an end to state-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. In response to the heinous atrocity of the September 11 attacks and the recalcitrance of the Taliban in refusing to extradite bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership to the United States for prosecution, President Bush announced on 7 October 2001, under the auspices of Operation Enduring Freedom, that combat operations against Afghanistan and the Taliban would commence. The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom can be broadly outlined as the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al-Qaeda leaders and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

The United States cited article 51of the UN Charter as the legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. Article 51 states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The legal criteria for the initiation of the war under the UN Charter were comprehensively—and, it must be said, tragically—met. On 5 October 2001 member states of NATO invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

The International Security Assistance Force is a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation led security mission in Afghanistan, established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by resolution 1386. ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and the surrounding area from the Taliban, al-Qaeda and factional warlords to allow for the establishment of the Afghan transitional administration, headed by President Hamid Karzai. ISAF comprises 47 nations, including Australia, and there are now almost 120,000 ISAF personnel in Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks Australia, under the coalition government, stood shoulder to shoulder with our American cousins. On 17 September 2001, Prime Minister John Howard announced to the parliament that the then government, of which I was a proud member, would be involved in invoking the ANZUS treaty and pledging military and other assistance to the global effort to stamp out state-sponsored terrorism. The invocation of the ANZUS treaty by Prime Minister Howard had bipartisan support in the parliament. This was the first time the treaty’s clauses on acting to meet a common danger had been invoked since the treaty was enacted in 1952. On 4 October 2001 the government directed the Chief of the Defence Force to have a range of military assets, including special forces, available to support the US under the ANZUS treaty.

Our forces in Afghanistan are doing a remarkable job in difficult and dangerous circumstances. But in the finest military tradition of the Anzacs, our troops are performing magnificently despite the inhospitable terrain of a country that has defeated armies stretching back to Alexander the Great. Our Special Operations team strikes fear into Taliban to the point where the enemy will break contact or manoeuvre rather than face our ghosts at night.

Our troops are fighting side-by-side with Afghan National Army forces as part of the remote operational mentoring and liaison teams. These deployments illustrate the success of the mission in Afghanistan that has been implemented since February 2008 as part of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. The current Labor government altered this mission to commence mentoring and training the Afghan National Army and police whilst continuing reconstruction and population protection.

On 21 October 2008, the defence minister issued a press release that outlined the revised mission in Afghanistan. It stated:

“The handover marks a new chapter for the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan, with a new focus on building the capacity of the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan Province,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“It forms part of Australia’s coordinated approach in Oruzgan Province of disrupting extremists, building infrastructure and increasing the capacity of the Afghan Army.

However, the government’s message remained confused. The PM, in his National Security Statement of 4 December 2008, stated:

In Afghanistan, our objective is to reduce the spread of terrorism by helping Afghanistan build a more peaceful and stable state and so reduce the risk of that country once again becoming a safe haven and a training base for terrorist organisations with global reach.

In reality, the government has moved almost exclusively to training and mentoring the Afghan National Army. Therefore, it was a relief to gain clarity from the Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Houston, who reiterated, during a 13 September 2010 media roundtable, Australia’s objectives in Afghanistan. He stated:

Australia has clearly defined goals in Afghanistan. To deny sanctuary to terrorists; to stabilise Afghanistan; and to train the Afghan National Army 4^th Brigade in Uruzgan to protect the key population centres in the province and ultimately hand over security responsibility to the Afghans themselves.

Therefore, in addition to reconstruction efforts in Oruzgan province, MRTF-1’s role also included capacity-building and mentoring of the Afghan National Army.

Australia is leading the way in training and promoting the development of the Afghan people in determining their own destiny. The mentoring of the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade has now become the primary focus of our engagement in Afghanistan. Mentoring the 4th Brigade has its challenges, but is gradually reaping rewards. The 4th Brigade being capable of controlling Oruzgan is the key to enabling our troops to be withdrawn so that the Afghans can control their own destiny in a safe and secure place where the people can live without fear of reprisals from the Taliban and other criminal elements.

There is still room for the Karzai government to improve its levels of governance beyond the major cities, to the regional areas where the Taliban still have considerable influence and are seen as the alternative government. Coupled with this is the need for the Karzai administration to rid the country of the endemic levels of corruption at all levels of government. Indeed, we are paying $250 million towards getting that contingent to a capacity and capability that will ensure long-term security for the people of that country.

We are there for the duration, until the job is done. The coalition supports the continuing deployment of Australian forces in Afghanistan, as such action focuses on defeating the threat of terrorism at its source. Afghanistan has long been a training ground for terrorists, including those who perpetrated the attacks in Bali and Jakarta and against our embassy in Indonesia.

Over the past decade, 111 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks that were planned and executed from terrorist safe havens in the mountains of Afghanistan: 12 October 2002, Kuta, Bali, 88 Australians killed; 9 September 2004, Australian Embassy, Jakarta, nine Indonesians killed and 150-plus injured; 7 July 2005, London, train and bus bombings, one Australian killed and 11 injured; 1 October 2005, Jimbaran Beach, Kuta, Bali, four Australians killed and 19 injured; 17 July 2009, Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels, Jakarta, three Australians killed. The terrorist threat to Australia is very real. It was the simultaneous presence at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan of militants from across South-East Asia that facilitated many of the personal relationships that exist between Jemaah Islamiah and members of other violent Islamist groups.

The mission in Afghanistan is critical to Australia’s national security interests. However, in this parliamentary debate we have heard from some elements on the fringe of the political spectrum that believe Australia’s interests lie in withdrawing Australian troops before our mission is complete. These elements, particularly the Greens party, have spent nearly as much time denigrating the war in Afghanistan and our alliance with the United States as they have in wilfully choosing to neglect the broad strategic, political, security and moral imperatives that have led to Australia’s United Nations sanctioned participation in this conflict, and the imperatives for us to remain until our mission is complete.

The coalition supports a strategy that, in the first instance, denies Afghanistan as a training ground and operations base for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Secondly, we support the stabilisation of the Afghan state through the combination of civil, police and military training for local Afghans, to enable them to achieve self-determination within a reasonable period of time. It will more than likely be a protracted engagement that will require long-term efforts to reconstruct the social fabric of that country.

Within the context of framing the debate, we need to focus on the Greens’ foreign and security policy, which respected journalist Paul Kelly recently described as:

… a world view, documented point by point, stunning in its isolationist utopian pacifist philosophy, unsuitable for the responsibility of nationhood. Long ignored, it needs to see sunlight.

The Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, has publicly called for Australia to abandon our mission in Afghanistan—this coming from the leader of a minor political party who has not visited our troops in the field to see the conditions and the positive impact our presence is having. Nor have the Greens and their leadership sought a briefing from the government on the mission. When it comes to national security, the Greens appear more concerned with appealing to the inner-city intellectual left than with availing themselves of the facts of our mission in Afghanistan.

Our mission in Afghanistan is critical to Australia’s national security interests today and will be in the future. Our troops deserve to have a clearly defined mission, and Afghanistan deserves a chance to become a self-sufficient nation state without being subjugated by an extremist ideology.

(Extension of time granted) I thank the members of this House for their indulgence in granting me an extension of time. It gives me the opportunity to talk about the significant contributions made by members from all sides of the parliament in this debate. From time to time in such debates people like me take the opportunity to remind the community about some elements within the Australian parliament who have different views from the majority of members in the House, but I have to say that the speakers have all had one thing in common: their care and concern for their fellow Australians overseas. I hope that that care and concern is resonating from the parliament to the mainstream community concerning the wonderful contribution these young men and women are making for their government on behalf of the Australian people. These young people do not wish to go. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are directed to go there through the Australian Defence Force processes.

The very difficult situation that our young men and women in armed conflict find themselves in regarding the rules of engagement, and the problems associated with three of our well-trained Defence Force personnel from our commando brigades being charged, has also been raised in this place. Whilst their situation is the subject of an inquiry within the ADF, I know I speak on behalf of all of my parliamentary colleagues here, and certainly on behalf of my constituents and all fair-minded Australians, in saying that every possible legal assistance should be given to these fine young men. While we do not know the full details of the circumstances centred around the charges that have been laid against them, we do know that they were doing their duty on behalf of their nation and that they were doing it in the tradition of the duty that all young men and women who have gone into conflict on behalf of their country have carried out on behalf of this country for decades.

I want the community to know that I can confidently say on behalf of all of the members of parliament here that we have the best interests of those young men at heart and that we wish them well. We trust that the process—a process that was introduced because of some changes to particular UN charters some time back—turns out to be fair and equitable in terms of justice. We hope that it does not go down the path of the trial of Breaker Morant many, many years ago. That was a travesty of justice because it was driven by people within the British system of military justice and history has shown that the way it was handled was very, very bad.

But I am confident because as Australians we, whilst perhaps a little roguish in the way in which we carry on individually, are fair people when it comes to the crunch. I trust that that fairness, concern and compassion for our fellow Australians comes to the fore when these young well-trained epitomes of Australia’s finest come to trial. I hope that the outcome is such that the Australian people will have significant confidence in the ability of the ADF to protect their own when the time arises.

I thank the parliament for the opportunity to participate in this debate and, more specifically, I once again thank my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House for allowing me the opportunity to say a few more words about the men and women whom we love and care for in our Defence Force.

Debate (on motion by Mr Forrest) adjourned.