On Tuesday night last week after the Budget, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey clearly outlined that the Opposition was considering Defence as a target for even greater contributions to the fiscal position of the Commonwealth, saying the Coalition would go “much harder” than the Government on savings.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbot reinforced this in his Budget Reply speech to the Parliament by again stating that further savings could be garnered from the Defence Materiel Organisation.

Today, Mr Hockey in his address to the Press Club stated “we would… identify how we can do better with what we have.  We’ve already flagged that, when it comes to the public service, behind the frontline troops, there are savings that can be made.”

Further reductions to Defence funding, including for the Defence Materiel Organisation, as proposed by the Opposition last week are inconsistent with the Opposition’s statements both this week and last week that Defence has made too much of a contribution to the Budget surplus.

Shadow Minister for Defence Senator David Johnston last week criticised the Government for seeking savings from Defence, but refused to commit the Opposition to reinstating this funding.

Last night Senator Johnston said on Sky News that the Opposition would “have to work out where we get the funds.”

Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey have identified where they would “get the funds” – from further Defence savings.

The Defence Budget released last week was developed following a comprehensive review of the Department’s budget to identify contributions Defence could make across the Forward Estimates to support the Government’s broader fiscal strategy.

This review resulted in a Defence contribution to the Government’s fiscal strategy of $5,454 million across the forward estimates and saw Defence contribute $971 million in 2012-13.

This contribution will have no adverse impact on operations in Afghanistan, East Timor or the Solomon Islands.  The provision of equipment to Defence personnel on operations will not be adversely affected and there will be no adverse impact on the number of military personnel in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Furthermore, there is no fundamental change to our Defence Budget from a strategic perspective:

• in the 2009-10 Budget, the Government, for the first time, budgeted over $100 billion for Defence across the Forward Estimates;
• last year in the 2011-12 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements, Defence’s Budget across the then four years Forward Estimates period was $103.4 billion;
• in this Budget, the Government has budgeted $103.3 billion for Defence across the four year Forward Estimates period;
• this level of funding will maintain Australia’s status in the top 15 nations in terms of world Defence expenditure, along with Canada either 13th or 14th in that list;
• in comparison to G7 nations and China, Australia continues to be 2nd on the list of military expenditure per capita basis, with only the United States spending more per capita; and
• in real dollar terms, we spend far greater than any of our regional neighbours.

 Media contact:

Mr Smith’s Office: Andrew Porter (02) 6277 7800 or 0419 474 392

This stands in stark contrast to his colleague the Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel, Stuart Robert, who stated in the Parliament on Thursday 10 May “…available at a very good price and option, may I commend the Minister for a quick and sound decision. It is a very good capability. The loss of the Caribou was quite a loss in terms of short take-off and landing. The C-27J will add significant capability to our arsenal.”

Let’s put some facts on the table: 

In his media release, Senator Johnston stated: “It appears there was no competitive tender process, no rigorous evaluation, and a billion dollar decision has been based on a quick desk top audit.” 

The Government agreed to purchase 10 Alenia C-27J Spartan Battlefield Airlift aircraft at an all up cost of $1.4 billion to replace the Caribou aircraft which was retired from service in 2009 after a career spanning more than four decades.  The C-27J complements the capabilities of the C-130 and C-17 aircraft and has been widely welcomed by Air Force. 

A competitive down selection process to the C-27J was made following an exhaustive assessment by the Department of Defence, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Air Force of information provided by the manufacturers of the C-27J and C-295 aircraft. 

Information was sought from Alenia (the C-27J manufacturer) and Airbus Military (the C-295 manufacturer) throughout 2011 who were asked to participate in a selection process.  Each was asked to provide information on the performance of their aircraft, as well as costing data, in order to enable Defence, the DMO and Air Force to conduct a comparative assessment of each aircraft, including aircraft performance and configuration, against the Australian Defence Force (ADF) requirements. 

An equal and same opportunity was given to both Airbus Military and Alenia.  The decision to acquire the C-27J was made by the National Security Committee of Cabinet on the recommendation of the Department of Defence, the DMO and Air Force, together with formal advice from central line agencies including Treasury and Finance. 

The C-27J flies higher, further, faster and can access more airfields in our area of interest.  The C-295 is unable to carry some of the equipment that is vital to support ADF military and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.

Senator Johnston also stated: “…there were merits in both the C-27 and the C-295, but at $1.4 billion the C-27 will cost the taxpayer more than twice as much as the C-295…”. 

The cost of the C-27J and the C-295 aircraft are comparable.

What Senator Johnston fails to understand and acknowledge is that the $1.4 billion includes not only the acquisition cost of the aircraft, but also the modifications to the aircraft for equipment needed for specific ADF roles, initial logistics support (including spare parts, training, materiel handling equipment, technical data, management fees) testing and certification, and facilities.  These costs would apply to any aircraft platform chosen, including the C-295. 

Senator Johnston also stated the aircraft “…had already been mothballed by theUnited Statesbecause they were not operationally effective.”

This is not what his colleague the Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel, Stuart Robert says. 

The aircraft being acquired byAustraliaare new build aircraft and had not been “mothballed by theUnited Statesbecause they were not operationally effective.” 

The 2013 United States President’s Budget affected manyUnited Statesmilitary programs, including terminating the C-27J.  TheUnited Statesjustification for this decision was financially driven but based on the rationale that the larger C-130 can perform almost all of the missions envisioned for the C-27J fleet in theUnited Statesairlift fleet.  As well, the recently-completed comprehensiveUnited States’ strategic review concluded that its airlift fleet could be reduced by the termination of the C‑27J.

In contrast to theUnited States,Australiahas had a gap in its intra-theatre airlift capability since the retirement of the Caribou. 

Senator Johnston also makes the generalised assertion that: “In the eyes of just about every other air force around the world the C‑295 is not only considered to be the best value for money but also the most effective battlefield airlifter.” 

This is not a view shared by the Chief of Air Force or the RAAF.

Media Contacts:
Mr Smith’s Office: Andrew Porter (02) 6277 7800 or 0419 474 392

Last month Ferra Engineering was awarded Boeing’s International Supplier of the Year award at a ceremony held in the United States.

Ferra was selected from a pool of more than 17,500 Boeing suppliers in 50 countries worldwide.  

“This is an outstanding result and I went there to congratulate the workers at Ferra and thank them for the work they do for Australia’s Defence Force,” Mr Clare said.

“Ferra employs more than 100 workers to build things like rudder pedals for Super Hornet fighter planes and mission kits and weapons pylons for the Navy’s new Romeo combat helicopters.

“This award is recognition of the terrific work Ferra is doing and a testament to the capability of Australian small and medium manufacturers.”

Ferra won the work with Boeing through the Federal Government’s Global Supply Chain Program which assists Australian companies to gain access to the export markets of international defence companies.

Mr Clare said that Ferra’s award was more proof that the Federal Government’s Global Supply Chain Program was working.

“Ferra is one of the first businesses that signed up to the Federal Government’s Global Supply Chain Program in 2009,” Mr Clare said.

“The Federal Government’s Global Supply Chain Program has been a roaring success.

“So far, it has delivered $444.8 million worth of export contracts for Australian business and small businesses have been the big winners – winning 90 per cent of the value of that work.”

Currently six major global defence companies are engaged in the Program, including Boeing, Raytheon, Thales, Northrop Grumman and more recently BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin.

Media contact: Korena Flanagan – 0418 251 316

The Prime Minister and Defence Minister Stephen Smith will take this commitment to the NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) summit in Chicago on 20-21 May.

This follows Australia’s commitment to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund of US$200 million over five years beginning in 2009-10.

Afghanistan will have responsibility for its own security by the end of 2014.

To consolidate and build on the security gains of the transition strategy, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will need ongoing funding and training and mentoring support.

Australia has a vital national interest in supporting Afghanistan’s stability and security after transition. Our commitment to ANSF funding reflects these enduring national interests.

Australia is a significant contributor to ISAF. We are committed to the transition strategy and to supporting Afghan National Security Forces through transition in Uruzgan.

In Chicago, we will also re-affirm our commitment to supporting Afghanistan after transition. In addition to ANSF funding, we will help train and mentor the Afghan National Army and police. We will consider an ongoing Special Forces presence.

Australia will maintain a substantial development assistance program beyond 2014. This will help sustain progress made in the delivery of basic services such as education and health to the people of Afghanistan.

Australia’s enduring commitment to Afghanistan will be formalised through a Long-Term Partnership which the Prime Minister will sign with President Karzai.

This Partnership will frame cooperation beyond 2014 in a range of areas, including security, trade, investment, development and cultural and people-to-people links.

Media Contacts:

Prime Minister’s press office: (02) 6277 7744

Minister Smith’s media contact: Andrew Porter 0419 474 392

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 15 MAY 2012

TOPICS: Defence Budget; Afghanistan

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Defence Minister Stephen Smith, thanks for your company.

STEPHEN SMITH:     A Pleasure, Peter.

VAN ONSELEN:        $5.5 billion out of the forward estimates. Why were you the Minister whose portfolio got gutted?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well every agency, every department, had to make a contribution to returning the Budget to surplus. A strong economy’s good for all Australians, it’s also good for Defence. So yes, we made a substantial contribution, we’ve ring-fenced some very important areas and whilst it is the case that some of those savings will be difficult, they are manageable and they’re not going to operate against our people in the field overseas or our core capability.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       I want to get to the manageability of them in a moment, but you’d have to agree that Defence took the brunt of the cuts, certainly in terms of ministers and their portfolios. I’m wondering if you’ve felt like in a sense you were – you know, you were in the portfolio that was targeted for the cuts over others?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well no, Defence has got a large budget in the 2008-2009 Budget. For the first time over the four-year forward estimate period, Defence essentially went to a budget of $100 billion. When you look at the four-year forward estimate period for last year’s budget, the overall total was $103.4 billion. This year it’s $103.3 billion.

So in the overall scheme of things, if you like the quantitative difference one year to the next is $0.1 billion out of $103 billion. Now, that doesn’t take into account real funding and the like, but it is a significant saving, but every department, every agency was asked to do so. But not every agency or every department has a four year, forward estimate $100 billion spend.

VAN ONSELEN:        Do you accept though that the Government’s not living up to what it hoped for in the Defence White Paper of 2009, the three per cent increase in real terms?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well certainly we are under pressure so far as the short and medium term financial arrangements for the White Paper 2009 are concerned. There’s no point running away from that; we are under pressure. The White Paper 2009 had some budget rules of three per cent on average to 2018-19 and then 2.2 per cent for the next decade.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       And that’s not happening?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well, it’s not happening in terms of the three per cent average over the last couple of years, but we’re not the only country who is under pressure so far as defence or military spending is concerned in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       That’s true, but in our region, defence spending seems to be going up in a lot of powers. You’re more comparing that to other Western nations that have been under pressure.

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well in our region we remain – in our immediate region, in the South Pacific andSoutheast Asia- we remain far and away the biggest defence spender. So yes, we have taken a 5.5 cut over a four-year period but we’re still over $100 billion and as I say, $0.1 billion out of $103 billion is the direct comparison. But we remain in the top 15 defence spenders, so we compete withCanadafor 13th – for 14th. That was the case last year, it’s the case this year, and we’re still the second-largest per capita defence spender.

So we continue to be far and away in our own region, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the biggest spender. But we continue to be in the top 15 military defence and peacekeeping spenders.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       In terms of our capability though, how can we justify the delays to the aircraft that were otherwise coming online and the delays to the submarines when you think about the fact that defence obviously is the kind of area where the integrated nature of it is such that if, you lose one arm or the other, it becomes difficult for the whole operation to be in sync, losing that kind of capability does make it harder for Australian Defence Force doesn’t it?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Firstly, so far as aircraft capability is concerned, we’ve got 71 classic Hornets, we’ve got 24 Super Hornets and 12 of those are wired up for the potential to take the electronic warfare capability, the Growler, and that capacity is still there for us to make that decision.

What we have deferred for two years is when we buy effectively our first squadron, our first 12 Joint Strike Fighters and what we’ve done is exactly the same as my US counterpart Leon Panetta has done. A couple of months ago, he deferred decision- making on about 170 Joint Strike Fighters, so the Joint Strike Fighter project has had its delays, it’s had its problems, and we’re not the only country adversely affected. So that’s a very good example of where a project is delayed through no fault of the Government, no fault of defence and the like.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       But more problematic than that is the submarine delay. I mean, I’ve been reading reports that the 12 new submarines are only likely to be fully online as late as 2050. I mean, that’s an awfully long time.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it’s the brave person who makes that prediction. What we’ve done with the 12 future submarines is to be very careful, very methodical, very exhaustive, very forensic about the start of the project, and we’ve done that for a range of reasons.

Firstly, we’re doing it in the aftermath of the Collins class submarine, where we know we’ve had longstanding endemic maintenance and sustainment issues that have bedevilled that project effectively since the first sub went into the water in 1996 and the last sub went into the water in 2003, and all of our experience is that 80 per cent of the problems in a project are found in the first 20 per cent of it, so this will be the largest single defence project that the Commonwealth has seen, so we’re entitled to take care with it.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       But there’s a gap there though. I mean, that makes sense to me other than the gap in our submarine capability between when they all come online-

STEPHEN SMITH:     Again, it’s the brave person who makes that prediction with confidence. There is always a risk of a gap in capability when you move from one capability to another. That was the case with the Oberon submarine to the Collins. But when the Collins class sub went into the water, the design life of type was some 28 years, so on paper the Collins will last until 2031; that’s on paper.

We’re currently doing the exhaustive assessment as to whether that life of type is accurate or whether more years can be gotten out of the Collins, and there are a couple of points to make about that. Firstly, they have not been in the water anywhere near as much as we would’ve preferred, and that’s why we’ve invested a considerable amount of effort in the last 12 to 18 months to try and improve that.

But secondly, the US Ohio sub for example had a designed life of type of 30 years and 40 years on they’re still in the water. So is there a risk of a capability gap? Yes there is, but we have started the process of exhaustively assessing a range of options including military off the shelf. So I wouldn’t be making those predictions. The biggest risk to our submarine capability frankly at the moment is the Liberal Party who refuse to commit themselves to 12 submarines, let alone the project.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Well I’ll be talking to the Shadow Minister about that later in the program.

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, you should ask him that question!

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       And I definitely will. But the submarine capability is an interesting one, because my understanding is it’s also a significant factor in relation to intelligence-gathering, and Australia is – you know, that’s one of the things that we do well, I’m told, on the international stage. Yet having a gap in submarine capability puts us perhaps in jeopardy of our international standing with our allies in terms of our intelligence-

STEPHEN SMITH:      Well, a couple of things. Firstly you shouldn’t assume the gap, that’s the first thing. Is there a risk- yes, there is, and we’re very conscious of that. Secondly, I never talk about operations that we do, whether it’s submarines or other platforms, particularly in terms of intelligence.

But what I can say is that when the Collins class submarine is in the water, it is a very effective submarine. So a lot of our effort in recent times has gone into seeking to improve the maintenance and sustainment, so that we’d get them in the water on a much more regular basis.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Can I ask you about something that – the self-propelled artillery, which the decision not to acquire that is now in place – we’re the only country of our sort of military standing that doesn’t have self-propelled artillery, are we?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well I’m not sure that’s right, but the judgement we’ve made is firstly we will continue to have towed artillery, whether it’s towed and put into position by Chinook helicopters or whether it’s towed by trucks and the like, and that will continue to be a very effective artillery capability. There were issues with the self-propelled howitzer, including the type of ammunition that we could use, but also it’s 80 tonnes and it can’t be moved other than by its own propulsion.

But I’m also not walking away from the fact that that decision to a very large extent was based on priority and finances and it was one of the projects, one of the very few projects, that we determined not to proceed with. But we will continue to have, obviously, a towed artillery capability and a very effective one at that.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       And can I ask you about the issue of the combat identification software for the ground forces? Now, this is basically designed to ensure that friendly fire isn’t something that our troops suffer from. Now, this is also not going ahead. Isn’t that a classic worrying element that doesn’t go ahead in terms of the safety of our troops when they’re in harm’s way?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well no, that project has been delayed but the capability that we’re looking for there is effectively also being garnered in other projects. So in the Defence Capability Plan, which was written under the Defence White Paper 2009, we had about 180 projects, 170 projects continue. Of the 10 that have been stopped or aren’t going ahead, it’s either because a change of scope or because another project has taken over that capability.

And so that’s why it’s erroneous to assert, for example, that the White Paper is no longer valid. In a capability sense, the vast bulk of the projects in the White Paper continue to proceed. There are a very small number, 10, where they’ve been overtaken by events and a small number where we’ve changed their scope and the self-propelled Howitzer is one example.

But the vast bulk of movement in the Defence Capability Plan is essentially delays to schedule. Now, in the normal course of events, that occurs on an ongoing basis, either because of technical difficulties or industry difficulties.

In this Budget, some are delayed as a result of financial measures but the vast bulk of the capability of the Defence Force continues to move through the system, and just as we have protected our overseas operations and our military numbers, so we’re also protecting our core capability in the Defence Capability Plan.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       But Minister, you described it as erroneous [indistinct] sort of critical that the Defence White Paper course isn’t continuing, but one of the advisors to the Government, no less, Ron – Ross Babbage, I should say – he’s quoted as saying it’s a deep falsehood to say that the plans of the White Paper are on-track. It’s a complete and utter nonsense. That’s one of the architects.

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well, he was an advisor to Joel Fitzgibbon, one of a number of advisors. That’s his view. He’s obviously very deeply attached to the 2009 White Paper, but his view is erroneous. Yes, we are under a lot of pressure so far as the finances are concerned, but we’re no orphan there.

The US, the United Kingdom, we’ve seen very deep cuts, and what we’ve tried to do is to effect our savings in a way in which core capability is protected and that when the fiscal position improves we can resume activity at a higher level. That’s unlike the United States and United Kingdom, where they have chopped capability out or stopped doing particular functions.

Now, we have avoided that, and at the same time we’ve also left ourselves the capacity to continue to pick up core capability as we did after the Budget by announcing the decision to buy a military tactical airlift, the C-27, which complements our C-130s and our C-17s, and to continue to be able to – as I said earlier – acquire a Growler capability if we make that decision, and to see the vast bulk of our core capability – landing helicopter docks, air warfare destroyers – continue to be produced.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       But would you agree that in terms of percentage of GDP going into defence dropping down to just over 1.5 per cent, that’s not sustainable in the long term, that’s just a short term-

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well there’s no doubt that this government and previous governments have had an aspiration to be around or at two per cent of GDP and currently we’re closer to 1.5 than two. So, obviously, I would prefer to be higher, but that’s not the only measure. The Budget continues to be a defence budget over four years of over $100 billion. That’s only been the case since 2009.

We continue to be the second-highest per capita expenditure of defence funds and we continue to be in the top 15. So whilst we are closer to 1.5, when you get to the last two forward estimate years, we are on the rise again. But the-

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Isn’t that then just a case of the defence budget being curbed in the short term because of a political goal of getting to a surplus?

STEPHEN SMITH:     No, when you look at the so-called budget rules of the 2009 White Paper, for the first time a government tried to set out a long-term pathway to financial certainty.

The White Paper also said that the events of the global financial crisis continue to unfold, that they were unfolding, and what we’ve found in the three or four years since the White Paper is that the effective double dip recession in Europe, United Kingdom in particular, Global Financial Crisis Mark II in Europe, and the difficulties that we’ve seen the United States economy suffer has seen not just Australia but the UK, the US, Canada, other countries under pressure for their defence spending.

So, in addition to all of the very good strategic reasons why we brought the White Paper forward a year to 2013 – and those strategic reasons include a drawdown from the Middle East after Afghanistan transition, a drawdown effectively from East Timor and the Solomons, plus the very important Force Posture Review which we put out which draws our attention again to the defence of Australia and our northern and western approaches.

In addition to those very important strategic reasons, there are also obviously good financial reasons as to why it makes sense to examine those issues in the White Paper context, not just in the day-to-day or budget-to-budget cycle sense.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Just finally Minister, you mentioned Afghanistan and the drawdown there, that’s obviously been in the press in the last few days. How confident are you that the Afghan forces are going to be able to take up the slack as foreign forces leave the country and we won’t see a situation where the country goes backwards, when it doesn’t have that kind of foreign support-

STEPHEN SMITH:     We’re very pleased that Uruzgan has been put in the third tranche of transition provinces – we’re one of 11. So by the time the so-called third tranche is completed, 75 per cent of Afghanistanwill be under Afghan-led security responsibility.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Are you confident that that’ll be effective?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Certainly in Uruzgan, we are confident that we’ll get there by 2014 if not earlier. We’ve been pleased with – in the last 18 months – better progress than we thought we’d make in terms of training and mentoring. We’ve certainly made up a lot of ground on the security front and that’s been reflected throughout Afghanistan.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Because I’m sure Australians want the troops home, but in a sense there’ll be this feeling of dejection if we’re in a situation where the country goes backwards once the troops leave.

STEPHEN SMITH: And that’s why we have made it very clear, the Prime Minister and I, that post-transition, post the end of 2014, Australia remains in the marketplace for really three things. Firstly, a long-term strategic agreement with Afghanistan, which we may well be able to sign in the margins of the Chicago Summit next weekend. Secondly, an obligation to – on the part of the international community, to fund the Afghan National Security Forces and Australiawill make a fair contribution to that.

But thirdly, to also leave behind some support for them, whether it’s special forces for counterterrorism purposes, but also potentially advisors on the military front. And also specialist trainers, like officer training and artillery training.

So post-transition, Afghanistan will continue to need the support of the international community but in Australia’s case and in other cases it will be with much less numbers. But it’s important that we continue to give that support so that they can make sure that they take hold of security responsibility but also meet that into the future.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:       Defence Minister Stephen Smith, thanks very much for joining us on Showdown.

STEPHEN SMITH:     Thanks Peter, thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: Proof copy and E & OE

DATE:  14 May 2012 

TOPICS: Afghanistan; Craig Thomson.

LYNDAL CURTIS: Stephen Smith, welcome to News 24. 

STEPHEN SMITH: A pleasure, Lyndal.   

LYNDAL CURTIS: Well the transition to Afghan-led security in the Uruzgan Province, what will that mean in practice?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, what it means in practice is that we’ve been included as all of Uruzgan, the entire province, in the third tranche. That will start about the middle of this year. Our assessment- and the International Security Assistance Force assessment- is, as a rule of thumb, it takes you 12, 18 months to effect a complete transition.   

So we continue to be on track to transition to Afghan-led security responsibility in Uruzgan by 2014, and as the Prime Minister and I have been saying for some time now, possibly earlier.  But we need to take that as it comes, we need to go step by step, and we need to make sure that the outcome is, to use the jargon, conditions-based, and not timetable based.

But we are pleased the Uruzgan is in as a province.  That was our assessment.  And we are confident we’re on track to effect that transition in Uruzgan.  

LYNDAL CURTIS: As things stand now, do you believe the Afghan-led security, or the Afghan-security forces, are in a position to begin stepping up to taking responsibility in the province?

STEPHEN SMITH: Absolutely. That’s been our judgment. We of course – as you’d expect – were consulted both by the Afghan Government and by the International Security Assistance Force.   

Our analysis, both to General Allen and to the Afghan authorities is that we believe that we’ve made up significant security ground in Uruzgan over the last 12 to 18 months, the Taliban had not been able to make up any ground in the field. 

And so we were confident that Uruzgan could be appropriately placed in the third tranche.  Our judgment was also that it was better for all of the province to be in the third tranche.   

But we accepted – as had occurred in other provinces – that that could be either in whole or in part, that was entirely a matter for President Karzai, and his officials.  But we’re pleased that all of Uruzgan will now proceed to transition in the third tranche. 

That coincides, or is the same as our own analysis, the same as ISAF’s analysis.  So that’s a good thing.  And we look forward to effecting it.

LYNDAL CURTIS: Do you think it will take the 12 to 18 months that’s outlined in the timetable, or is there a possibility Australian troops could end up coming home even earlier than you expect?  

STEPHEN SMITH: Well again we’ve got to take it step by step.  Our judgment is that transition in Uruzgan can take place during that 12 to 18 month timetable.  That’s also the International Security Assistance Force judgment that, as a general proposition, it takes 12 to 18 months to transition in a province or a district.  But as I say, we’ll take that step by step. 

We want to make sure that we do it properly, we want to make sure that it’s conditions based, we want to make sure that we get the appropriate outcome so far as the capacity of the fourth brigade of the Afghan national army is to take the lead responsibly but we are very confident we’re on track.  

LYNDAL CURTIS: Will it make things less risky for the Australian troops?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well again, as we proceed through transition, we will continue to do that which we’re doing now. So our mentoring and training taskforce members will be out there, as will our special forces, but as we effect a complete transition, then what will naturally occur will be the Afghan’s fourth brigade, the Afghan national army fourth brigade will take lead responsibility.   

We will of course continue to be there.  We will be to use the International Security Assistance Force team, we’ll continue to be combat ready if we are needed to assist from behind. But we’ve got to take that step by step. But it’s a logical consequence of making the transition that our training and mentoring taskforce will, over a period of time, no longer be required. 

But we’re not being definitive about that, because we do need to take it step by step.  And we do need to make sure it is conditions and outcomes based, but the bulk of our 1550 on average contribution to Afghanistan, the bulk of our presence in Uruzgan is some seven to 800 trainers and mentors, and over a period of time they’ll no longer be required.  

But we will continue, obviously, to have personnel in Afghanistan both to the end of 2014, but also we’ve indicated that we are prepared to take part in a post-2014 presence as well – and that will be one of the key discussions at Chicago next weekend.

LYNDAL CURTIS: If I could ask you about another issue, MPs are discussing having a code of conduct for politicians.  The Prime Minister says she’s happy to discuss it.  But why is one needed?  Aren’t the standards expected of politicians clear, the same for the public – don’t break the law?  

STEPHEN SMITH: Well as a general proposition that’s right, and we’ve proceeded to date essentially on a common sense basis that members of Parliament have to set high standards, and the community make judgements about that.  But in the course of this type-

LYNDAL CURTIS: Don’t politicians, though, know what those standards are – and whether they’ve met them or not?  

STEPHEN SMITH: Well there’s – there are community standards, and there is a high standard that members of Parliament have to meet, but in the course of this Parliament there have been discussions, whether it’s been before the relevant house committee, or the Senate committee, discussions about whether the time has come for the drafting of a code of conduct. I’m not opposed to that. 

As I say, historically of course it’s been done on the common sense test, the community standards test, the community judgements test, but I’m not opposed in principle to seeking to articulate that or to distill that in a code of conduct.  And, as well, we’ve also made it clear that we don’t have any objections to the notion of a, effectively, a Parliamentary ombudsman or an integrity commissioner.  

And these sorts of developments we’ve seen in other parliaments around the world.  We’ve also seen codes of conduct emerge for the conduct of others in the community.

So I’m happy to see the conversation progress.

LYNDAL CURTIS: You’ve said today it’s not up to you to say whether Craig Thomson’s explanations so far of his actions is believable, but in the end won’t the Parliament, won’t the public make a judgment on whether his explanation is plausible – even before any court processes have been gone through?  

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, two things I think- Firstly, he’s made it clear last week that he wants to make a response in the Parliament, he wants to outline his position in the Parliament.

I think he obviously has an entitlement to do that, but he also has an obligation to do that, so I’m much more interested in that presentation to the Parliament than I am to – than I am in what interviews he might do. That’s the first point. And the Parliament will make I expect a judgment about his response.  

Secondly, there are very serious findings, very serious matters for concern in the findings of Fair Work Australia report, but if those matters are to be taken any further, then it’s really a matter for the appropriate authority – and not so much a matter for the Parliament.  The Parliament is neither an investigative body, nor a prosecuting body, so the Parliament-

LYNDAL CURTIS: But it does have the ability and does not it have the entitlement, as you said, to make a judgment on what Craig Thomson tells it next week.  

STEPHEN SMITH: And it won’t surprise me if after Mr Thomson has made his contribution to the Parliament next week, or the following week, that the Parliament will make a judgment of sorts.

But it won’t be an investigative judgment, nor can it be a prosecutorial judgment. So they are rightly matters for relevant authorities. And that’s why people, Members of Parliament, Ministers have strongly made the point that he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence, but equally he does have an obligation – and he has made clear he wants to discharge that obligation – to set out to the Parliament what his side of the story is, or what his version of events are.  

And for myself, I’m happy to patiently wait for that when it occurs over the next Parliamentary sitting fortnight.

LYNDAL CURTIS: Stephen Smith, thank you very much for your time.  

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks Lyndal, thanks very much.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 14 MAY 2012

TOPICS: Afghanistan; RAAF Pearce Air Show

ROD TILEY:  And the Defence Minister Stephen Smith kindly joins us now, leaving a meeting to do so.  Stephen, thanks for your time.

STEPHEN SMITH:   A pleasure, Rod.

ROD TILEY: Great announcement today as far as what’s happening in Afghanistan – the likely draw-down ahead of schedule.

STEPHEN SMITH:   The Prime Minister and I have been saying for a number of months now that we were confident that we could transition in Uruzgan by 2014 or perhaps earlier, and we remain confident of that.  The transitional arrangements were really set in place at the summit of leaders, NATO and International Security Assistance Force leaders in Lisbon in 2010 in November, which I attended with the Prime Minister, and we set out this timetable to hand over to Afghan security-lead responsibility by the end of 2014 in Uruzgan Province where we are in the main.  We’re very pleased that it’s been included in the so-called third tranche and we remain confident that over the next 12 to 18 months we can effect that transition. But we’ll take it step by step.  But it does open up the possibility of a substantial proportion of our training and mentoring taskforce coming home earlier than the end of 2014.

ROD TILEY:  Minister, what change between the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, where you were looking at the end of 2014, to now where you’re saying by the end of 2013.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well I think a couple of things.  Firstly, we have in Uruzgan and in Afghanistan generally, while it has been very tough and at times tragic for us and for other countries, we have made up substantial ground on the security front.  And so for the last 18 months in Uruzgan, the Taliban have not taken back any ground in the field that we have taken from them so there’s been an enhanced or an improved security atmosphere and arrangement on the ground.  And indeed, when I was in Afghanistan recently, a month or so ago, together with the Chief of the Defence Force, the local Afghans were even more optimistic and positive than we were.  So there’s been no doubt that the Taliban are finding it tough, and that’s why – one of the reasons why they’ve resorted to high-profile propaganda motivated attacks, including assassinations.  And regrettably they’ve been successful on that front. But secondly, the other key factor, we’ve found that from a slow start or a low base, that the training and mentoring of the Afghan national army in particular, and the national and local police, to a lesser extent, has taken hold better than we originally thought. 

So they are now taking responsibility for a whole range of matters.  They still need our assistance, but we’re doing very many more joint patrols, very many more operations and exercises where the Afghans themselves take lead responsibility, and we assist from the sidelines or back of house.  And that’s where we ultimately want to end up, which is the Afghan national army – in the case of Uruzgan, it’s the fourth brigade – but also the local and national police being responsible for lead security, but knowing that we will continue to need to be there to render assistance at least until the end of 2014. But we’ve also made it clear that Australia is happy to contemplate a post-2014, or a post-transition presence, in particular advisors, and also the possibility of continuing to contribute some special forces for counter-terrorism purposes.

ROD TILEY:  Strange war isn’t it.  I mean in Vietnam we had advisors in prior to the war.  And here we are with Afghanistan, we’re likely to keep advisors after the war.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well, what we don’t want to do is to send a signal that come 31 December, 2014, that that’s it for the international community, and we’re out of there, so we do need to send a signal that the international community is interested in Afghanistan and its region for a long period of time.  And that’s why you’ve seen the United States recently strike up a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan which says we’re interested in you for the long-term. NATO have done likewise, and European countries like France and Italy and Germany and the UK, they’ve either signed up – or will sign up.  And we’re also currently in discussions with Afghanistan for a strategic partnership agreement.  And there’s a prospect that President Karzai and the Prime Minister may sign that at Chicago next weekend when we all go to Chicago for the follow-up summit from Lisbon. 

But also in terms of just ongoing assistance, we don’t – there are two things that we need to do for the Afghan national security forces, one is make sure that they continue to be resourced after the end of the transition period; and the Russian experience – when the Russians left Afghanistan, for a couple of years they continued to fund the Afghan national army and that worked well.  But then with the collapse of the Soviet Union the cheques stopped coming.  And we then saw essentially the deterioration of the Afghan national security forces, and hence the rise of the Taliban. So we don’t want to make that mistake again.

So Australia has said that we’ll make a fair contribution to that.  But secondly we also think, post transition, when they have taken lead responsibility across the country, they will need potentially some back of house assistance in specialist areas – whether that’s advisors, whether it’s specialised training like officer training or artillery training, or indeed special forces.  But the good thing about today’s announcement by President Karzai is with the so-called transition of the third tranche we now see every province – there are 34 provinces, it’s our equivalent of a state, 34 provinces in Afghanistan.  A third of those now have been wholly transitioned.  So that includes Uruzgan.  So 11 out of the 34.  But there’s now a part of every province, so every part of the country has now got some part in the transition cycle.  And when the so-called third tranche, today’s tranche complete in 12 to 18 months time, it will be 75 per cent of the country covered by Afghan-lead responsibility. 

So it continues to be difficult, continues to be dangerous, and we’re not taking anything for granted, but it does reflect the progress that we think has been made over the last couple of years.

ROD TILEY: Well fingers crossed that the Afghan Government and your commanders are right.  Are you likely to pay the troops a visit either prior to the Chicago summit or after?

STEPHEN SMITH:   We had, in the run up to Chicago we had a meeting of NATO and ISAF defence and foreign ministers meeting in Brussels in April.  So Bob Carr, the Foreign Minister and I went to that and prior to going to Brussels I visited Afghanistan – I went to Kandahar where we have some aerial personnel, some air-force personnel both helicopters, Chinook – our Chinook helicopter contribution, but also for unmanned aerial surveillance purposes, and then to Tarin Kot where we’ve got the bulk of our people and then to Kabul.  So I’ll go – I won’t be going back to Afghanistan before Chicago, but in the normal course of events I go a couple of times a year.  So I expect to get back to Afghanistan before the end of the year.  And I tend to try and do it in the run up to a meeting of Defence ministers in Brussels so that I’ve just come from an on the ground experience…

ROD TILEY:  Sure.

STEPHEN SMITH:   And the Prime Minister of course gets there a couple of times a year as well.  And the Governor-General also gets there from time to time.  So that’s – the Governor-General and Prime Minister going is obviously very good for the morale of the troops.  From my perspective it just helps keep you in touch so that you’re speaking to the commanders on the ground and the troops on the ground, not just the reports you get on paper in Canberra.

ROD TILEY:  Good on you.  Thank you.  And if you’re heading for Chicago this weekend, you’re going to miss the Defence Force air show from Pearce Airbase.  So bad luck.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Don’t tell anyone Rod but I’m… don’t tell anyone, I’m trying to sneak out there on Friday so I get a bit of a-

ROD TILEY:  Might see you there then.

STEPHEN SMITH:   A bit of a look before the Saturday, but no, it’ll be a terrific event and again I’m probably not supposed to tell you this – but I think we’re working hard to see if we’re going to have a B-52 flyover as well which will be something that’s occurred in previous air shows in other parts of the country. And that will impress the locals for sure.

ROD TILEY: Keep a seat for me will you?

STEPHEN SMITH:   Okay.

ROD TILEY:  Bye bye. 

STEPHEN SMITH:   Thanks mate, good on you, cheers.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  14 MAY 2012

TOPICS: Afghanistan; Craig Thomson; Defence Budget

STEPHEN SMITH: Well thanks very much for turning up. This morning I just want to welcome very much the announcement by President Karzai of the third tranche of provinces and districts transitioning in Afghanistan. I welcome very much the fact that all of Uruzgan Province has been included in the third tranche of transition. This accords with Australia’s analysis that we are on track to transition in Uruzgan Province by 2014 if not earlier.
 
The effect of the third tranche of transition which will commence from the middle of this year is that we now see over three quarters of Afghanistan’s population now covered by lead responsibility for security so far as Afghanistan is concerned.
 
This is a very important milestone so far as the international community’s commitment to transition is concerned. You might recall that in November 2010, the Prime Minister and I attended the Lisbon summit where NATO and the International Security Assistance Force agreed the process for transition, to transition out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, seeing Afghan National Security Forces take the lead responsibility for security matters.
 
For some time the Prime Minister and I have been saying that in Uruzgan we believe that we are on track to effect that transition by 2014, and possibly earlier, and we’re very pleased that that assessment is shared by President Karzai, and also by General Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force.
 
When the transition in the third tranche is effected, as I say, we’ll see some three quarters, some 75 per cent of Afghan’s population covered by lead responsibility for security by the Afghan National Army and the Afghan national and local Police.
 
So we welcome very much the announcement. We are very pleased that it accords with our analysis. It reflects the very good work which is being done by our mentoring taskforce and our forces in Uruzgan Province in particular.
 
On the weekend the Prime Minister and I will attend the Chicago NATO/ISAF Leaders’ Summit, and there, not only will the international community make an assessment of progress so far as transition is concerned, but also formally, at leaders’ level, at Presidents’ and Prime Ministers’ level, start to begin the detailed work so far as post-2014 transition arrangements are concerned.
 
And there, Australia has made it clear for some time that we believe it’s important that the international community resource the Afghan National Security Forces after transition. And secondly we’ve also made it clear that Australia is prepared to contemplate a presence in Afghanistan after transition after 2014, certainly so far as development assistance and capacity building is concerned, but also so far as military advisors are concerned, and with a proper mandate, an ongoing presence of Special Forces.
 
I’m pleased to respond to your questions.

JOURNALIST: Hamid Karzai has a given commitment for Afghan security forces to be in place for the middle of next year. Why then is it still going to take at least another year or two years for Australian forces to be removed?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as the President’s statement overnight says and we accord with this analysis, when you start the transition process in a province it can take some 12 to 18 months, that’s our judgment. And in Uruzgan Province if you start the process of transition in the middle of this year then our judgment is that it can take some 12 to 18 months to effect that transition, that orderly process, that conditions-based process to the Afghan National Security Forces in the case of Afghanistan to the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army, and also to the Afghan national and local Police.
 
Now again that is our assessment. That’s the advice that we have from the Chief of the Defence Force, and our senior officers on the ground, but we will take that step by step. We have always agreed with the analysis that transition needs to be conditions-based, but for some time we believe that we have been on track in Uruzgan.
 
So our analysis remains that we believe that in Uruzgan we can transition to Afghan-led security responsibility by 2014, if not earlier. Once we make that judgment as we go we’ll then be in a position to make judgements about what draw-downs, so far as Australia’s mentoring and training taskforce is concerned.
 
Once the mentoring and training job has been done, yes of course we will continue to be there, but we will continue to be, to use the International Security Assistance Force, combat ready. In other words, there to assist as required. And we’ll also have an ongoing presence so far as security forces are concerned.
 
These judgements we need to make in an orderly way. We’re not seeking to anticipate the detail of that. We want to make sure that we effect a transition, and as we’ve seen indeed in recent times there will continue to be set backs – Afghanistan and Uruzgan continue to be difficult and dangerous places – but the security grounds that we have made up in Uruzgan and in Afghanistan generally over the last 12 to 18 months, the Taliban has not been able to make up this ground in the field. They have resorted to the high-profile propaganda motivated attacks which regrettably we’ve seen occur in recent days.

JOURNALIST: Sir, the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about most troops would be home by the end of 2013- does this change that?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well no, as the Prime Minister herself has said today, what has been announced overnight by President Karzai, after a lot of work by individual countries like Australia, both a lot of work by NATO and the International Security Assistance Force, but in the end this is a decision for the Afghan Government and President Karzai.
 
The announcements made today simply underline the analysis the Prime Minister and I have been articulating to the Australian people for some time, in particular the Prime Minister’s speech of a month or so ago where she laid out the transition arrangements. So we continue to be confident that we will affect a transition in Uruzgan by 2014 if not earlier, but so far as the details of any draw-down is concerned, we need to take that step by step.
 
And the Prime Minister herself today has said that what she has said today, what President Karzai has announced is entirely consistent with her remarks of a month or so ago and indeed they’re entirely consistent with the remarks on transition that our partners have made. For example, my US counterpart, Secretary for Defence, Leon Panetta. He’s put out a statement today which essentially accords with his earlier remarks, and also accords with the plan that we’ve had in place since Lisbon in November 2010.

JOURNALIST: You mentioned how the summit has been held in Chicago and the possibility [indistinct] Australians prepared to contemplate a presence beyond 2014. What would that entail?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well as I’ve been saying for some time certainly, Australia wants to have a long-term partnership with Afghanistan and there is a possibility that President Karzai and the Prime Minister will be able to sign in Chicago a strategic partnership between Australia and Afghanistan. This reflects a long-term commitment by Australia.
 
Certainly, we’ve made it clear that we want to continue with our Development Assistance Program, we want to continue with capacity building and helping the Afghan Government, and the Afghan institutions, so far as improving governance and improving the strength of their institutions are concerned.
 
When it comes to matters military, we have said that we are open to continue to make a contribution so far as training and advising is concerned, and so, for example, we currently engage in high level or specialised training, artillery is one example. We’ve made it clear we’re prepared to continue training in so far as artillery is concerned.
 
We’ve also agreed to a proposal by the United Kingdom Government that we join with the United Kingdom and also potentially Canada and New Zealand, and other countries, to engage in officer training, high level training of Afghan National Army officers.
 
As well, we’ve also said that given that it’ll almost certainly be the case that a continuing counter-terrorism force is required, that under a proper mandate, that Australia would be prepared to consider an ongoing presence of Special Forces. But these are the details that we need to agree with our international colleagues, we need to agree with the Afghan Government, and we need to agree with NATO and the International Security Assistance Force, and the detail of that debate, or those issues, will start in Chicago.
 
The second important area where we’ve indicated that in principle we are prepared to make a contribution, is to make a contribution, a fair contribution, helping to resource in an ongoing way the Afghan National Security Forces, the Afghan National Army, and the Afghan national and local Police.
 
This is very important, because the experience after the Russians left Afghanistan, was that the Russians continued to support the Afghan National Security Forces in a resource sense. For a couple of years, while they continued to be adequately resourced, security was by and large respectable, or manageable. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the resourcing of the Afghan National Security Forces ceased, we then saw the rise of the Taliban.
 
So there are two important components for the international community and Australia after transition in 2014, the resourcing of the Afghan National Security Forces, and what presence there is in a military or defence sense, so far as the international community is concerned. We’re prepared in principle to make a contribution to the resourcing of the Afghan National Security Forces, and we’re prepared to contemplate an ongoing presence of advisers, of trainers, and also Special Forces, but that presence would be substantially less, very substantially less than our current, on average 1550 component, which is made up by a large majority of our current mentors and trainers.
 
As we make the transition to a competent Afghan National Security Force in Uruzgan, the need for those large number of mentors and trainers will of course recede, and then finish.

JOURNALIST: Minister, do you agree with [indistinct] a toughening up on MPs through a code of conduct?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I’m very happy to see ongoing discussions and debate about a code of conduct for Members of Parliament. The relevant House committee has had a reference, and has reported on that recently, it’s currently before the relevant senate committee. The Government’s also indicated that it believes in principle that having an Integrity Commissioner, effectively a Parliamentary Ombudsman, is also something that it agrees to, so I’m very happy to see these conversations continue.
 
It’s very important that Members of Parliament conduct themselves to a very high standard, the community expects that, and Members of Parliament should expect nothing less, and whilst some people say historically you can make commonsense judgements about that, I’ve got no objection in principle to that being formalised, either by a Parliamentary Code of Conduct, or by a Parliament Commissioner, or Integrity Commissioner, and the like. And so I’m very happy to see these Parliamentary deliberations continue.

JOURNALIST: Do you believe Craig Thomson?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, that’s not the appropriate question. A series of very concerning findings have been made about Mr Thomson, he indicated to the Parliament last week that he was proposing when the Parliament reconvened to make a detailed statement about that. For myself, I await to hear and listen to his statement. Secondly, if there’s any action to be taken as a result of those findings, that is action for the appropriate authorities and not for the Parliament itself.
 
So I think there are two stages to this process, Mr Thomson has indicated he’s proposing to make a statement to the House. That’s a good thing, not only is he entitled to do that, I think there is a necessity for him to do that, and he’ll do that when the Parliament resumes in a week or so. But then so far as formal action is concerned, that’s a matter for relevant authorities, and not a matter for the Parliament itself.

JOURNALIST: [Indistinct]

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, in the course of the International Security Assistance Force assessment, and in the course of the Afghan Government’s assessment, consideration was given to whether it was appropriate to transition all of Uruzgan Province, or part of it.
 
Our own view, which we presented both to the International Security Assistance Force and to the Afghan Government, was that we had made sufficient gains so far as security arrangements were concerned in Uruzgan, that it made sense to transition all of the province, Uruzgan will now be one of 11 provinces which have been transitioned in whole, we’ve got 34 provinces in Afghanistan, and so effectively now you’ve got a third of the provinces being transitioned.
 
Our judgement was that it was appropriate to transition all of Uruzgan Province, at the same time we made it clear that it was entirely a matter for the Afghan Government, it was a matter for their formal assessment. We welcome the fact that the judgement of President Karzai and his officials accords with ours, we think that we have made sufficient ground, so far as security arrangements are concerned in Uruzgan over the last 12 to 18 months, that it was appropriate to transition all of Uruzgan.
 
We’re not the only province that has been transitioned in that way, about a third have, and that’s a good thing. When I was last in Afghanistan, which was about a month ago, I made that point to General Allen, I also made that point to President Karzai, and I made the same point to Defence Minister Wardak when I met him a week or so later in Brussels.
 
So our analysis was that we believe that all of Uruzgan could be transitioned, but equally, we made the point to NATO and to International Security Assistance Force officials that it was entirely a matter for the Afghan Government. But our analysis accorded with ISAF’s analysis, which was appropriate, given the security gains for Uruzgan to be transitioned as a whole.

JOURNALIST: [Indistinct]

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, our Special Forces currently operate out of Uruzgan Province, as I’ve put previously on the public record, under a delegation of authority by the National Security Committee to me and also by me to the Chief of the Defence Force in special circumstances out of province or out of Uruzgan operations are authorised. The current arrangements will continue.
 
Obviously we need to give consideration to where our Special Forces might operate from in the post-2014 transition environment. As the Prime Minister and I have both said, in principle we are prepared to make an ongoing contribution so far as Special Forces are concerned but that needs to have a proper mandate. Currently, the international community’s presence in Afghanistan is mandated by United Nations Security Council resolution which has been reaffirmed and renewed over almost a decade.
 
So, again, where our Special Forces might operate from is a matter that we need to consider with the international community, in particular with NATO and the International Security Assistance Force. We’re a fair way from getting to those details. The important thing is to make sure that there is a proper mandate for the ongoing presence of any military advisors or trainers but also a proper mandate for any ongoing presence of Special Forces contribution.

JOURNALIST: After that date, [indistinct] some Special Forces be under US command?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well again, we will need to see the arrangements that are in place. At the moment we work very closely with not just United States Special Forces but also with United Kingdom Special Forces and so our Special Forces which operate out of Uruzgan Province do so in cooperation and in conjunction with other contributing nations’ Special Forces and we do that as part of the International Security Assistance Force arrangements. What arrangements are in place after 2014 will depend upon the matters that I have gone through.

JOURNALIST: We’ve seen a pretty big squeeze on the defence budget [indistinct]. Are you relieved now that there’ll only be another 12-18 months of maintaining Australia’s [indistinct]?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I’ve made the point generally that if you look at last year’s Defence Budget which goes over a four year forward estimate period, last year’s Defence Budget over the four years, the combined Defence Budget over a four year period was $103.4 billion. If you go to this year’s Budget which the Treasurer unveiled on Tuesday of last week, over the four year forward estimates period the four year spend for defence is $103.3 billion. So effectively have the difference of 0.1 of a billion dollars out of $103 billion budget over a four year period.
 
This has caused some people to make some comments which I regard frankly as overblown. So, with a 0.1 billion dollar difference over $103 billion program, I’ve seen some people say that this is the worst day for Australian Defence since the fall of Saigon. This is patently a nonsense. I’ve also seen other commentators say that as a consequence of the Budget people will, as we speak, be planning the invasion for 2028-2031. This is also of course a nonsense.
 
So, let’s just get this very clearly into context. Yes, Defence made a contribution to keeping the Budget or getting the Budget back to surplus. A strong economy is good for Australians and it’s good for Defence and there are some decisions that we have made which are difficult decisions but they are manageable. And we have ring-fenced some very important areas.
 
There is no adverse implications for our operations overseas whether that’s Afghanistan, whether it’s the Solomon Islands, whether it’s East Timor. There are no adverse implications for the kit supplied to our people on the frontline or about to be deployed. There are no adverse implications for military numbers and we have effectively ring-fenced or sought to protect core capability that you find in the 2009 White Paper.
 
And the fact that the system continues to operate, there’s no better reflector than my announcement on Thursday of last week that we would be spending $1.4 billion to acquire a much-needed tactical military air lift capability, the replacement for the Caribou with the acquisition of ten C-27s.
 
We’ve also made the point – the Prime Minister and I – that because of changed strategic circumstances – so you do see the prospect, not just over the next few years of a draw-down from the Middle East, a draw-down from Afghanistan. So a draw-down from what has effectively been a land expeditionary warfare force to the Middle East for a decade to Afghanistan, then Iraq, then back to Afghanistan. So you see that draw-down.
 
At the same time we see the prospect over the next couple of years of a draw-down from our stabilisation role in East Timor and in the Solomon Islands. So, this is a cause for giving some very serious thought to the strategic implications which follow as a consequence of that. As well you’ve got the ongoing movement of strategic [indistinct] to our part of the world and that has continued since the white paper 2009.
 
You’ve also got, for example, the United States making it clear since that time that not only will it continue its engagement in the Asia Pacific, it will enhance it and we’ve seen that reflected by the United States Global Force Posture Review which has seen the rotational arrangements for Marines in the Northern Territory and we’ll see greater access to our Northern Territory airfields. And in due course, greater access to US Naval vessels to HMAS Stirling our Indian Ocean port.
 
So these are but a number of strategic reasons why we have brought forward the 2014 White Paper, effectively by 12 months to the middle of 2013. That, from a strategic point of view, is a very sensible thing to do but there’s no doubt that in terms of short and long-term finances we are under a lot of pressure so far as the aftermath of the global financial crisis is concerned.
 
The 2009 White Paper said that the global financial crisis effects were unfolding. Well, we’ve now seen the unfolding effects of that global financial crisis mark two effectively in Europe, a double-dip recession in the United Kingdom, in Spain and elsewhere. And as a consequence of that we have seen very deep cuts to United States defence and military and to United Kingdom defence and military and Australia is not the only country who is under pressure so far as Defence Budget is concerned. But what we have sought to do is to ring-fence those important areas, but also not to discontinue doing things, but to reduce resources that go to particular areas of operation so that when the fiscal position improves we can take those to a better level.

So, a draw-down from Afghanistan is but one part of a range of factors which has caused us to bring the white paper forward to the middle of 2013 and that will be a very good exercise and very good timing. And as a general proposition, commentators have welcomed that as a sensible thing to do. I think it’s not only sensible, it’s essential and that’s why we’re going it.
 
Alright, everyone happy? Thanks. Thanks very much.

The third tranche includes Uruzgan Province, where Australia’s Mentoring Task Force, Special Forces and Provincial Reconstruction Team work with their Afghan and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) counterparts.

With the third tranche of transition, more than 75 percent of Afghanistan’s population will live in areas under Afghan security lead.

At the Lisbon NATO-ISAF Summit in November 2010, Afghanistan and ISAF countries agreed that Afghan security forces would take responsibility for security by the end of 2014.

President Karzai’s announcement is a strong signal that the transition process is on track.

Australia is firmly committed to Afghanistan and to the agreed transition strategy and its implementation. 

Transition is a gradual process, not an event, achieved when the conditions are right on a province-by-province and district-by-district basis. 

The inclusion of Uruzgan province in Tranche 3 reflects the progress made by Afghan, Australian and ISAF military and civilian teams in improving security and in the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Security Forces.

As transition gets underway in Uruzgan, Australia’s Mentoring Task Force and Special Operations forces will support Afghan National Security Forces as they progressively take the lead for security.

As ISAF has said, the complete process of transition in an area can take 12-18 months, meaning that Australia’s target of completing transition in Uruzgan by the end of 2014, and possibly earlier, is on track.

Australia will continue its strong support for Afghanistan after transition, including through a training and advisory role and through a possible special forces contribution.  This ongoing commitment to Afghanistan will be a feature of Australia’s contribution to the Chicago NATO-ISAF Summit next week, which we will attend.  

PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  14 MAY 2012

TOPICS:Afghanistan.

LAURA JAYES:     Joining me now from Perth is the Defence Minister Stephen Smith. Thanks for joining us Minister.

STEPHEN SMITH: A pleasure, Laura. 

LAURA JAYES:     So the message we see from there, from Brigadier Noble is that Australians – Afghans are watching us very carefully. Do you think the Afghan National Security Forces will be ready to takeover in Uruzgan within 18 months? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, certainly that’s the basis upon which we’re planning, it’s the basis upon which the International Security Assistance Force is planning, it’s also the basis upon which President Karzai has made his decision and announced that overnight.

So we welcome very much the fact that all of Uruzgan Province has been included in the third tranche. That accorded with our recommendation to ISAF and also to the Afghan authorities but we do need to make sure that we get the outcome.        

So the expectation is 12 to 18 months, but we’ll take that as it comes. But the second point which has just been made by our representative in ISAF, our Deputy Chief of Staff in ISAF is that we also need to ensure that the international community, including Australia, sends a signal to Afghanistan that we won’t desert Afghanistan after the end of 2014 and that’s why Australia’s been saying we’re prepared to commit to continuing resources to the Afghan National Security Forces after 2014 and we’re also prepared for a presence in Afghanistan to continue to assist, whether that’s trainers, whether that’s advisors, whether it’s Special Forces. And these are two of the key area that’ll be considered in Chicago next weekend. 

LAURA JAYES:     Yes, it’s a week out from Chicago. You must have a better idea of what the Government is willing to commit in terms of financial stability. There has been a figure thrown around that it’s going to cost western nations around $4 billion every year to ensure stability there. So what is Australia’s fair share? 

STEPHEN SMITH: Well we’ve made it clear that we think the international community should continue to make a contribution to resourcing the Afghan National Security Forces, that was one of the lessons of the Russian departure from Afghanistan. The Russians continued to contribute to the Afghan National Security Forces for a couple of years after they left, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union the cheques stopped coming and that then saw the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces and the rise of the Taliban.        

So we’re not proposing to make that mistake, we will make what we have indicated is a fair share to that contribution. The contribution should come not just from NATO and ISAF countries but in our view also from other countries in the region who haven’t necessarily made a military contribution but we may be in a position to make that announcement in the run up to Chicago or at Chicago itself.

That’ll be a matter for the Prime Minister.        

But we’ve also made it clear that with proper authorisation we can look at continuing post 2014 to have advisors there, and also potentially Special Forces there, because we expect there will continue to be a counter-terrorism need as well- but that conversation will also start in Chicago but we’ve made it clear in principle that they’re the sorts of areas where we think we can make an ongoing contribution. 

LAURA JAYES:     Minister Smith, what are the tangible measures of success in Uruzgan province, particularly with the handover of Australian troops to the Afghan National Army? There’s a lot said about Afghan National Army troops just being Afghan ready. I noticed when I was there a month ago on the ground that yes, they are increasingly showing a lead role but they don’t have things like key equipment like the robots for IEDs and one thing that was really quite noticeable is that they don’t have the facilities to actually take care of their war wounded.        

So would we also look within ourselves and would Australia contribute to that medical side of things and also equipment?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, so far as all of those so-called enablers are concerned in Uruzgan Province- where we work with what is described as Combined Taskforce Uruzgan- where we work very closely not just with the United States but with a small number of other International Security Assistance Force countries, the so-called enablers are provided by the United States.

And the United States have made it clear, not just through the Commander of Combined Taskforce Uruzgan on the ground in Tarin Kot but also through senior officials including through General Allen, the Commander of ISAF, those so-called enablers will continue until we get to transition.       

So that’s the contribution that the United States makes so far as Uruzgan province is concerned. That will continue until we get to the transition stage or the transition environment and what enablers remain and the provision of enablers is one of the post-2014 contribution discussions that Australia, the United States and International Security Assistance Force needs to have and that’s one of the reasons why the summit in Chicago next weekend is so important, because we will start to consider for the first time the detail of these arrangements.        

What is the contribution by the international community to the Afghan National Security Forces to ensure is can continue and what sort of contributions – military, whether it’s Special Forces, whether it’s advisors, whether it’s the so-called enablers will continue to be made to Afghanistan and how that will be structured and how different International Security Assistance Force countries will contribute to that.       

So we’re starting that conversation now which is why the Chicago summit is so important, not just because it lets us know that the transition strategy determined at the Lisbon summit in November 2010 is on track but we can start now to look at the detail of these important features post-2014. 

LAURA JAYES:     Also, 2014 will be a year in which Presidential elections are held in Afghanistan, do you think this summit should also consider a post-Karzai environment and that being that – those Presidential elections being a possible flare- up where the Taliban might take advantage of that transition and that change in the political landscape.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well certainly when we talk about transition we tend to focus on the post-2014 transition to Afghan-led security responsibility, but there is also a transition taking place so far as Afghan governance and Afghan democracy is concerned.       

So, yes the next Afghan presidential election is scheduled for 2014- under the Afghan constitution President Karzai is limited to two terms so we need to also take into account the transition that is occurring there. That of course will be a matter for the Afghan people and the Afghan institutions of state, its democratic institutions of state but it is the case that we have seen that Taliban – because they can’t make up ground in the field we have seen them resorting to the high profile, propaganda-style attacks and assassinations.        

So we are only too well aware that there is the potential for the Taliban to disrupt the Afghan elections in 2014 but all of us are aware of that, from President Karzai down. But the transition from one Government to another will also be a very important feature of 2014 and a very important part of Afghanistan emerging to take full responsibility for its own affairs.

LAURA JAYES:     Minister Stephen Smith, thanks so much for joining us.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks Laura, thanks very much.