SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

Senator LUDLAM-I would like to move to Afghanistan. According to the portfolio statements, the cost of the deployments to Afghanistan is around $53.1 million. Is that correct?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I will get the Chief Finance Officer to handle all money questions.

Mr Prior-Senator, your question was?

Senator LUDLAM-The overall appropriation for Afghanistan and what that covers.

Mr Prior-What it covers or the quantum?

Senator LUDLAM-The quantum. I have just put a figure of $53.1 million to you. I am seeking
confirmation of that and to get a sense of what it encompasses.

Mr Prior-If I refer you to the PBS. You have referred to the portfolio budget statements, have you? Page 29 refers to all the costings for the overseas operations. If that is what you are referring to, that will be the correct figure if you have drawn it from there. If you want me to quote the exact figure for the cost of operations-Operation Slipper-in Afghanistan, the budget estimates figure for 2008-09 is $618.9 million; 2009-10 is $81.1 million; and 2012-11 is $2.9 million, as portrayed in that table on page 29.

Senator LUDLAM-Thanks.

Mr Prior-Your other question was about what it covered?

Senator LUDLAM-Yes.

Mr Prior-It covers the net additional costs of operations, as all of our funding for operations covers-
additional costs such as supplies and materials required in theatre, the cost of transportation to and from theatre and the like. A net additional cost approach is taken in these tables.

Senator LUDLAM-I just want to draw the CDF's attention to criticisms raised by some actors in
Afghanistan about the blurring of civilian and military approaches through the provisional reconstruction teams. In particular, Doctors Without Borders has actually left Afghanistan because of the way in which some military elements were attempting to win hearts and minds by, for example, linking aid supplies with cooperation in identifying insurgents. Of course, NGOs in that country rely on political neutrality to be able to do their work. Do you have any comments on that, with particular regard to the role that the ADF might be playing in the reconstruction teams?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We do a lot of reconstruction ourselves. We are also doing a lot of training
of the civilian population ourselves, and all of that aid support is given without any strings whatsoever. We deliver the services as required by the provincial authorities. For example, we work very closely with the chief engineer in Oruzgan Province and there are absolutely no conditions in terms of the provision of that support.
If the engineer says, ‘Repair of the school is our number one priority and we would like you to do that,' that is what we will go and do. It is as simple as that. I do not think that the issues you refer to apply in the Australian context. We have AusAID co-located with us and they are also involved in this same space. I think my remarks cover their activities as well. There are no conditions attached to the provision of aid.

Senator LUDLAM-I believe Australia does have the largest non-NATO contingent in Afghanistan. Is that the case?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-That is absolutely correct. We are the largest contributor from outside
NATO and I think we are in the top 10 contributors overall. Our contribution is substantial and, as I indicated earlier on, we not only do a lot of security work, we actually do a lot of developmental work too. We have done a lot of construction around the town of Tarin Kowt and in other centres in the Tarin Kowt bowl, which really is the centre of gravity of Oruzgan province. We have also constructed a number of facilities, forward operating bases and patrol bases, for the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police so that the coalition and the Afghan government can extend their influence and presence out into areas that were formerly Taliban sanctuaries.
It is a very coordinated approach and I do not think anybody else does it quite the same way that we do it.
We have this very excellent engineering capability that is able to work in very demanding circumstances, not just environmental circumstances but also circumstances where, from time to time, a lethal threat from the insurgents comes into play.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. I understand that some of the other contingents, particularly those under NATO command, do place conditions on how their forces are deployed. The Germans come to mind. I understand that Australia actually does not place any restrictions on how Australian troops are used. Can you comment on that?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I have got some material here which addresses it. What you are referring to is the issue of caveats, as they are called. In fact, a couple of days ago General Craddock, who is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and actually runs the NATO operation in Afghanistan, referred to the number of caveats that apply. He said in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies that there were more than 70 national operational restrictions or caveats. He mentioned that some of these meant that there was a continual inability to do things. That is what you refer to. In terms of Australia, we do not have any caveats. We are deployed for operations into Oruzgan Province and our forces operate in the province without restriction. From time to time we operate beyond the province. Basically, if there is a requirement to do so, we look at the circumstances and make a decision. Of course, our helicopters, the Chinooks, can operate anywhere in Afghanistan as required by the coalition. So the caveat restrictions do not apply to us in the context that General Craddock was talking about.

Senator LUDLAM-Could I go back to the Rozi Khan incident that Senator Trood was previously asking
about. How much will Defence be paying out in act of grace payments as a result of that incident?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I am not prepared to share with you the detail of that. Honour payments are a difficult area and it is important that we keep the terms of the honour payment confidential for a number of reasons. I think you can understand that if people find out what we paid, it almost sets a market. I would prefer that we do not go there.

Senator Faulkner-Senator Ludlum, this has come up from time to time in Senate estimates and I think there is a general understanding in relation to these sorts of things that the amount of a payment like this and the timing of such a payment are kept confidential, not in the least in the interests of protecting the family of the deceased.

Senator LUDLAM-Thanks, Minister. I understand those payments are made to the family of the
deceased. You mentioned in your opening remarks under questioning that there were a number of people involved in that incident. Have we made payments to other families? Do we think we may have accidentally killed more people than just Rozi Khan in that incident?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-No. The people who were associated with Rozi Khan were part of his tribe,
part of his militia. We have paid the honour payment to Rozi Khan. He was a principal in the tribe and he is the person we should pay the honour payment for.

Senator LUDLAM-Just to be clear, there were other fatalities in that incident?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-There were other fatalities, yes.

Senator LUDLAM-But they are not subject to these sorts of honour payments?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-As I indicated to you, it is not clear. There were a lot of groups out there that night. The Taliban were around as well. Initially we thought the Taliban might be involved as well.