The ship was officially commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet by the Commander of the Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Stephen Gilmore AM, CSC in a ceremony conducted at the Fremantle Passenger Terminal today. 

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith, Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare and Parliamentary Secretary for Defence David Feeney joined the Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Ray Griggs AM CSC at the commissioning. 

The acquisition of this ship will help ensure that the Royal Australian Navy has the amphibious capability it needs for operations and humanitarian support in our region in the period leading up to the arrival of the Royal Australian Navy’s Landing Helicopter Dock Ships in 2014 and 2015. 

The Royal Australian Navy now has the following amphibious capability if required to provide humanitarian and disaster relief during the current cyclone season: 

• HMAS Choules;
• HMAS Tobruk;
• Windermere – leased from P&O until 31 January 2012, with the option to extend to the end of February 2012;
• HMNZS Canterbury – under Australia’s agreement with New Zealand it would be made available as part of the joint Pacific-focused Ready Response Force, subject to any operational requirements in New Zealand; and,
• A number of Landing Craft, Heavy. 

HMAS Choules is a Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which was originally commissioned into service with the Royal Navy in 2006.  

The Government announced it had been successful in purchasing the ship, formally RFA Largs Bay, in April this year for £65 million (approximately $100 million). 

The ship weighs 16,000 tonnes.  It is 176 metres long and 26 metres wide.  Its flight deck has room for two large helicopters and can also carry around 150 light trucks and 350 troops.   

Its cargo capacity is the equivalent of the Manoora, Kanimbla and Tobruk combined. 

HMAS Choules is a proven capability having provided humanitarian relief as part of the international response to the Haiti earthquake in 2010. 

The ship has been fittingly named after the former Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules, who sadly passed away in May this year at the age of 110. 

Claude Choules saw service in World War One and World War Two, as a member of both the Royal Navy and later the Royal Australian Navy. 

He was Australia’s last living link to those who served in World War One. It is therefore fitting that this ship bears the name Choules to represent the vessel’s links to both Navies. 

In the centenary year of Navy, it honours all of those men and women who, like Claude Choules, delivered quietly and with great dedication, loyal service to the Royal Australian Navy. 

Media Contact:

Mr Smith’s Office: Ellen Shields (02) 6277 7800 or 0400 347 473

Mr Clare’s Office: Korena Flanagan (02) 6277 7620 or 0418 251 316

Department: (02) 6127 1999

The Government has authorised the purchase of a ship to add to the Royal Australian Navy’s current amphibious ships, HMAS Choules and HMAS Tobruk. 

The purchase of a third ship will ensure that Defence has the humanitarian and disaster relief capability required between now and the arrival of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships in the middle of the decade. 

Defence is currently leasing the Subsea Operations Vessel Windermere to provide additional capability to the Navy over the coming cyclone season. 

Detailed decisions on the purchase of the additional ship will be taken in the near future. 

The third ship will primarily be used to transport troops and supplies in support of humanitarian and disaster relief operations domestically and in the region. 

A commercial off-the-shelf vessel will be sought so that minimal modifications will be needed allowing the ship to enter into service in the course of 2012. 

The vessel will be manned under a civilian crewing arrangement. 

Action taken this year: 

When Cyclone Yasi hit North Queensland in February this year, Defence did not have any amphibious ships available to assist. 

At that time Mr Smith and Mr Clare made no secret of their disappointment with the state of the Royal Australian Navy’s amphibious ships. 

Since that time the Government has taken a number steps to rectify the problem with the Navy’s amphibious fleet. 

First, in April the Government purchased the RFA Largs Bay from the British Government.

The ship was today commissioned into the Royal Australian Naval fleet as HMAS Choules. 

Second, work was conducted on HMAS Tobruk to return it to sea. 

Third, in order to maintain the Navy’s amphibious capability over the past 12 months, ships have been leased to supplement the existing capability. Subsea Operations Vessel Windermere has been leased to provide extra support this cyclone season. 

Fourth, to ensure such a gap in capability does not happen again, the Government also commissioned Mr Paul Rizzo to develop a plan to improve the maintenance and sustainment of our naval fleet. 

That report was provided to the Government in July and the recommendations are now being implemented. 

Current Amphibious capability if required: 

The Royal Australian Navy now has the following amphibious capability if required to provide humanitarian and disaster relief during the current cyclone season: 

• HMAS Choules;
• HMAS Tobruk;
• Windermere – leased from P&O until 31 January 2012, with the option to extend to the end of February 2012;
• HMNZS Canterbury – under Australia’s agreement with New Zealand she could be made available as part of the joint Pacific-focused Ready Response Force, subject to any operational requirements in New Zealand; and,
• A number of Landing Craft Heavy boats; 

Media Contact:

Mr Smith’s Office: Ellen Shields (02) 6277 7800 or 0400 347 473

Mr Clare’s Office: Korena Flanagan (02) 6277 7620 or 0418 251 316

Department: (02) 6127 1999

The Government has approved under Project NINGAUI the purchase of four route clearance systems to more safely clear roads of IEDs before troops travel on them. 

As well, Bushmaster vehicles will be upgraded to give troops an even higher level of protection against IED explosions in Afghanistan. 

Project NINGAUI (Joint Project 154) 

The route clearance systems will be used by Australian Army engineers to detect and clear explosive hazards, creating a safer pathway for troops as they patrol Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. 

The four systems will cost about $70 million. Each system includes: 

• Two HUSKY Mark 3 protected route clearance vehicles with ground penetrating radars (GPR) to detect explosive hazards;
• One HUSKY Mark 3 protected route clearance vehicle with interrogator arm to confirm that an explosive hazard has been found from a safer distance;
• Two protected High Mobility Engineer Excavators (HMEEs) to repair damaged routes and create bypass routes; and
• Two Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles fitted with SPARK mine rollers to provide a greater level of protection against explosive hazards. 

The HUSKY mounted ground penetrating radars provide the ability to detect explosive hazard threats from within an armoured vehicle.  

It will protect our troops by allowing them to detect IEDs that other detection equipment might not be able to find, especially devices with low or no metal content.  

The interrogation arm is a safer way of confirming that an IED has been found. It allows our troops to make this confirmation remotely from a safe distance. 

In September, Mr Smith and Mr Clare announced that the Government would loan two similar systems from Canada. 

The Canadian vehicles will be on loan for around 12 months effective from early 2012. 

The Government will purchase the new systems to provide Australian troops with a permanent route clearance system after the loan of the Canadian systems. 

Three systems will be deployed to Afghanistan with one remaining in Australia for training. 

The Husky vehicles will be purchased from the United States Government under their Foreign Military Sales system with the other elements of the system to be sourced commercially. 

Upgrades to Bushmaster vehicles

The Government has also approved the upgrade of around 200 Bushmaster vehicles. 

The Bushmasters to be upgraded include those currently operating in Afghanistan and the additional 101 Bushmasters announced for production in May this year. 

As part of that announcement in May, the Government said that Defence would evaluate a range of enhancements to the Bushmaster vehicle to increase the level of protection it provides to ADF personnel. 

A series of tests and blast trials on the enhancements have since been successfully conducted and as a result the Government has now approved the upgrades to proceed. 

The upgrades will further increase protection of the Bushmaster vehicle against IEDs.  

The upgrades include energy absorbing seats and stronger welding to further reduce the probability of lower limb and spinal injury occurring from an explosion. 

The vehicle upgrades will occur throughout 2012 and are likely to be undertaken in both in the Middle East Area of Operations and at Thales’ Bendigo factory. 

Media Note:

Imagery re Project Ningaui is available at:

http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?archiveId=5003=&search=11121567

Media Contact:

Mr Smith’s Office: Ellen Shields (02) 6277 7800 or 0400 347 473

Mr Clare’s Office: Korena Flanagan (02) 6277 7620 or 0418 251 316

Department: (02) 6127 1999

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  14 SEPTEMBER 2011

TOPICS: AE1 Submarine Memorial; Australian Peacekeepers Day; Amphibious Ships; AUSMIN; Afghanistan; MP’s Travel; Parliamentary Privilege.

STEPHEN SMITH:     Thanks for turning up. I’m very pleased to be here at Garden Island, together with the Chief of Navy. I’ve got a number of announcements and then I’ll make some remarks about AUSMIN and also overnight events in Kabul.

Firstly, I’m very pleased to be here on a day which coincides with the unveiling of the plaque for AE1, our first Australian Submarine, an E-Class Submarine called AE because it was Australia’s first Submarine Fleet.

Today the 14th of September, is the 97th anniversary of the disappearance of the AE1 and later today, later this morning, the Chief of Navy and the Governor-General will unveil the Memorial Plaque to the officers and men who were lost, the 35 who were lost when AE1 disappeared.

AE2 was also lost off the coast of Turkey, off  Gallipoli. It was scuttled after it was damaged and the wreck of AE2 was found in the late 1990s and confirmed in the early 2000s.

Efforts have been made over the years to try and find AE1 which was lost off the coast ofPapua New Guineain 1914 and AE1 Incorporated is a voluntary organisation which has for years dedicated itself to that search. Today I’m announcing that the Government will provide tax-deductibility status for contributions to AE1 for the purpose of contributions to find the wreck of the AE1.

That will last initially for a period of three years. We are very hopeful of trying to discover the AE1 before the centenary in 2014 and it’s a modest contribution which the Government can make to assist the search.

Over the years Navy has assisted with its own efforts and Navy will continue to cooperate with AE1 to try and find the wreck of the Submarine in time for the centenary.

Of course, our first submarine fleet back in the 1910s reflects that for a long period of time Submarines have been very important toAustraliaas part of our defence capability.

Today is also Australian Peacekeepers Day, the 64th Anniversary of Australian Peacekeepers. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, was here last week and he said privately to me, when I met with him, and also publicly, that he very much appreciated the longstanding contribution which Australia has made to United Nations and other peacekeeping missions.

We were part of the first United Nations-sponsored peacekeeping mission in 1947, the first country to have troops on the ground in a peacekeeping mission, and over the years we’ve had some 30,000 Australian Defence Force personnel and Police Officers involved in peacekeeping exercises. Tragically we’ve also lost over that period of time, some 13 personnel, lost in the course of peacekeeping duties.

I’m also announcing today with the Chief of Navy that Navy today will formally enter into a lease with P&O for the lease of the Windermere. We’ll use the Windermere effectively as a heavy amphibious lift ship to complement HMAS Tobruk and also to complement HMAS Choules when it arrives from theUnited Kingdomand is available for service in January.

We are doing this – and the lease will be effective from 14 October through to the end of January with a capacity to extend the lease until the end of February, to ensure that we have got sufficient capability in our heavy amphibious lift area for the coming cyclone season. The cyclone season we generally regard as starting in November and we’re often called upon for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, not just so far as Australia is concerned but also our region is concerned, the Pacific.

So those three announcements today. Later this morning I’ll be on a plane to theUnited Statesfor the AUSMIN meeting. In the first instance I’ll be travelling to Los Angeles and in Los AngelesI will formally take delivery, take receipt ofAustralia’s fifth C-17 Airplane and I’ll do that at Boeing’s Long Beach facility.

The C-17 has been a very important heavy aircraft lift capability for us and we’ve seen it perform magnificently in recent times, not just inAustraliain the face of floods and cyclones but also in Christchurch in the aftermath of the earthquake there and also in Japan.  So I’m very pleased to take delivery of that C-17 in Los Angeles tomorrow,United Statestime.

I’ll then travel toSan Franciscoand join with the Foreign Minister to formally take part in the AUSMIN meetings, starting with an official dinner on Wednesday night,United Statestime.

It’s the 60th Anniversary of our Alliance with the United States. The US Alliance continues to be the pillar and the bedrock of our strategic, security and defence arrangements so San Francisco, of course, in September 60 years ago, saw the signing of the ANZUS Treaty.

We will obviously have discussions about the key defence, security and strategic arrangements including Afghanistan but we’ll also include some of the new challenges like cyber threats. We’ll also discuss further the United States Global Force Posture Review.

In the aftermath of September 11, of course Afghanistan will be subject of very serious consideration. Can I make some remarks about events in Kabul overnight?

It’s now the middle of the morning in Kabul, four to five o’clock. The last advice I had from the Chief of the Defence Force in the last hour or so was that fighting continues. We will need to wait a few more hours today as light emerges in Kabul, to make firm judgments and assessments about loss of life and casualties. We know that there have been reports to date of a small number of Afghan Defence Force personnel who have lost their lives and also a small number of civilians.

Importantly, the advice I have from the CDF and from the Australian Ambassador in Kabulis that no Australians, whether civilians or Defence Force personnel, have been caught up in the attacks which have occurred.

Civilians have been killed. I absolutely condemn the actions of the Taliban in this terrorist attack in Kabul overnight.

We know, and I’ve been saying for some time, that in the course of this fighting season the Taliban would resort to high profile propaganda-style attacks and that’s because they are under security pressure. We’ve made considerable ground up against the Taliban in the last 18 months to two years, and we have been saying for some time we expected them to resort to high profile attacks such as these suicide attacks and the like, which are seeking to have an impact on people’s television screens and not necessarily a security impact.

But we condemn absolutely the attacks overnight. We are of course very pleased that no Australians have been caught up in it because we have Australian Defence Force personnel embedded into the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and our Embassy is down the road from where some of the attacks have occurred.

So thanks for allowing me that introduction on a range of subjects and I’m happy to respond to your questions.

JOURNALIST:            Minister, as a former Foreign Minister yourself, do you think that $1 million for a travel bill over nine months is excessive?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well, let me make a number of points. Firstly, my understanding is that the calculation which has been effected has been calculated on the basis of estimates of cost not actual cost. As a matter of standard procedure actual costs of overseas travel are tabled in the Parliament on a regular basis so people should wait for the actual cost rather than an estimate. That’s the first thing.

Secondly, Foreign Ministers travel. Foreign Ministers travel and so let’s just be sensible about this. One has to expect that the Foreign Minister of any country will travel. Foreign Ministers’ travel demands and requirements go in cycles. So I make the very obvious comment, a Foreign Minister of any country is not doing his or her job if they’re not travelling.

JOURNALIST:            Does Australia have a view about these calls that have been going on for some time about whether or not it’s time to start negotiating with the Taliban?

STEPHEN SMITH:     I’ve been saying for some time, and when the London conference on Kabul occurred in January of 2009, Australia strongly supported the sentiment of that International Conference which was Afghanistan won’t be won just by a military strategy, we need to have a political strategy as well.

And, as a consequence of that, we do need to encourage and support efforts at reconciliation, efforts at political rapprochement and you may have seen overnight or yesterday reports of support for the Taliban establishing a political office in Qatar. We welcome that. We support that.

We’ve seen in recent months the very initial signs of political outreach with the Taliban and the Afghan Government, the initial contact for discussions. That says two things. It reinforces Australia’s analysis which we’ve supported for a considerable period, that there has to be a political settlement in Afghanistan but, secondly, the Taliban would only think about coming to the table if they were under combat or security pressure and I welcome very much those initial signs of outreach and we welcome the proposed establishment of a Taliban office in Qatar to see negotiations or the early start of negotiations commence.

JOURNALIST:            You talk about outreach but how does such prolonged violence in such a major city of Afghanistan change the dynamics of this war?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well, as I say, I’ve been saying for a number of months that in the course of what we describe as this summer fighting season, because we have degraded the Taliban, not just in Uruzgan Province but in Afghanistan generally, that they would resort to high profile propaganda-style political attacks.

Obviously Kabul, Afghanistan, is at a very heightened security level but Kabul is not the only city in the world where we have seen, regrettably, successful terrorist attacks. It is an obvious tactic, it is aimed at undermining political will so far as the international community is concerned. Our single biggest problem so far as Afghanistan is concerned – and I’ve made this point to the Parliament and publicly – is that we have been there for a long period of time.

The Iraq distraction and the failure when we came back into Afghanistan – and when I talk about the failure, I talk about the failure of the international community – the failure when we came back into Afghanistan to have a proper military, political, strategic focus has cost us a number of years and when the history of Afghanistan is written that will be a very significant factor.

But we are absolutely committed to continuing the transition and the response to the events in Kabul overnight have effectively been handled by the Afghan National Security Forces. We are on track to transition to Afghan National Security Force responsibility in Uruzgan by 2014. That’s the international community’s commitment and we believe that’ll occur Afghanistan-wide, not just in Uruzgan Province where we are.

JOURNALIST:            Minister, there’s a study showing in Norway that the pre-commitment system there had, in fact, led to an increase in serious problem gambling and now Australia’s going down that path. Do you have concerns about the pre-commitment in light of this Norwegian study?

STEPHEN SMITH:     I’ll leave the detail of those matters to Jenny Macklin.

JOURNALIST:            Minister, do you think Kevin Rudd has been travelling to the right countries? He hasn’t been to Malaysia or East Timor.

STEPHEN SMITH:     I’ll just make the same points I made earlier. A Foreign Minister has to travel. It’s a matter for the judgment of the Foreign Minister as to where he goes but people should also bear in mind that there is, in this Parliament, as there was in the previous Parliament, a Parliamentary Secretary for the Pacific dedicated for that special purpose and Parliamentary Secretary, Richard Marles has been travelling widely in the Pacific and doing a very good job supporting the Foreign Minister on Pacific matters.

JOURNALIST:            When you were Minister for Foreign Affairs, you travelled less than Rudd has been. Do you think he’s travelling too much?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Any Foreign Minister has to travel. You can’t do your job as Foreign Minister if you don’t travel and the demands will come in peaks and troughs. The requirements and the demands will come in cycles.

JOURNALIST:            Do yourself and Kevin Rudd have pairs for the carbon debate?

STEPHEN SMITH:     I’ve got a pair from the Parliament for today, Wednesday, and Thursday. I’ll be back in the Parliament when it reconvenes on Monday. I was in the Parliament last night. I had a pair but I remained in the Parliament just in case pairs weren’t honoured when the procedural matters associated with the Government’s Clean Energy Legislation were dealt with. In the event the Coalition honoured the pair arrangements. That’s a good thing and I hope it continues.

JOURNALIST:            As a Member of Parliament are you concerned about Nick Xenophon using privilege to air allegations about a Catholic priest being guilty of rape?

STEPHEN SMITH:     I think if you are a Member of Parliament and have the benefit of parliamentary privilege you need to use that very carefully and when you name an individual or individuals in the Parliament you have to firstly be very sure and clear of your ground and you have to have made a very considered and deliberative judgment as to why that is necessary.

I don’t know enough about the details of this particular case to know whether in the circumstances that was warranted. In the event, that is a matter for the Senator concerned to justify why he has taken what is very much a last resort measure.

As a general proposition, it is of course very important that any institution or organisation where there are instances of inappropriate behaviour, whether it’s the Defence Force or whether it’s a Church, the institution itself, the organisation itself has to take responsibility and have a zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour. That is what we aspire to in the Defence Force, that is what the Chief of Navy and Navy aspire to and that is the same obligation which is placed on other institutions in Australian society.

JOURNALIST:            Just in regard to AUSMIN, how will you be canvassing the Joint Strike Fighter projects when you’re in discussions with American officials?

STEPHEN SMITH:     I’ll have a separate conversation with Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta about a couple of our very important capability projects, the Joint Strike Fighter is one. Our Submarine, future Submarine project is another. It may or may not come up in the formal AUSMIN discussions themselves but I’ll certainly have a conversation with him when we have a one-on-one meeting.

The key thrust of our AUSMIN deliberations will be the broader strategic, security and defence and foreign policy matters, the rise of our region, the Asia Pacific, the Asia Pacific Century, so the rise of China, the rise of India, deliberations about Afghanistan. We’ll also no doubt hear from both Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Panetta about the Libya engagement so far as NATO is concerned but I’ll certainly have a conversation with the Defense Secretary about the Joint Strike Fighter and our Submarine program.

JOURNALIST:            And just in regards to commemorating this Submarine today, why is it so important to try to find it up there near New Guinea, hopefully before the 100th anniversary?

STEPHEN SMITH:     We know this is the 100th year of Navy and this is one of Navy’s unsolved mysteries.

In earlier years, as a Member of Parliament from Western Australia I was closely involved with the HMAS Sydney Foundation Trust and one of the things which struck me when a Ship or a Submarine is lost, is that families very much want closure and so the descendants of the personnel concerned, the children and the grandchildren and sometimes the great-grandchildren, just want to have closure so they know where their father or grandfather or great-grandfather is lying or is entombed.

So it’s very important to the Navy, very important to submariners but also most important to the descendants of the families to try and find the final resting place and we now commemorate the finding of the HMAS Sydney and we hope that the search efforts for the AE1 will be successful to enable comparable commemorations to occur in time for the centenary on this day in September 2014.

JOURNALIST:            The rise of China, if there was a military conflict between China and Taiwan, which side would Australia take?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well, we’re not expecting there to be a military conflict between China and Taiwan. We have urged both China and Taiwan to resolve their issues and their difficulties in a peaceful way and we hope that continues. Okay, thanks.

TRANSCRIPTION: Proof Copy E & OE

DATE:  12 September 2011

STEPHEN SMITH:   Thanks very much for turning up. Firstly, can I officially and formally welcome Canada’s Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay. Peter, can I say how pleased I am to see you in Australia.

This is not the first occasion that Peter and I have met formally but it’s the first occasion that we’ve met either in Australia or in Canada and we’re very pleased to see Peter having an extensive program in Australia and then subsequently he’ll leave Australia and visit New Zealand.

We started the day with a wreath-laying at the War Memorial. It signified two things, firstly it was Australia and Canada paying our respects and our condolences to the Canadian and Australian citizens lost at September 11, the 10th anniversary, of course, yesterday. Canada lost 24 citizens. Australia lost 10. But as well it also reflected the longstanding and shared experience that Australia and Canada have, shoulder to shoulder in military and defence endeavours.

The Director of the War Memorial reminded Peter and I this morning that it was Australian and Canadian forces that broke the line at Amiens. He also reminded us, of course, we served together in Korea following our service in the First and Second World Wars, and we were together at Kapyong, the 60th anniversary of which we celebrated recently.

And, of course, we also have shared experience both in East Timor and also in Afghanistan where Canada has, over the period of its time in Afghanistan, contributed some 38,000 troops, now some hundreds of troops in Kandahar, transitioning to a training program in Kabul of nearly 1000 training personnel. So we have a significant and deeply shared military and defence experience.

Most importantly what we share is a great friendship and shared values and virtues and Peter and I have, on more than one occasion, had the conversation which is if you took the United States away from Canada’s southern border, if you took away the French influence, then Australia and Canada are very, very comparable: large land mass countries, federated states with a lot of geographic, social and economic diversity from the west coast to the east coast.

So we share a lot in common and that, in very many respects reflected by the fact that Prime Minister Harper is one of the few international leaders who has formally addressed our Parliament.

But we’re very pleased to see you here, Peter.

We’ve just come from a formal bilateral meeting and I’ll go through some of the issues that we discussed.

Firstly, we have agreed that from here on in we will have formal Australia-Canada Ministerial Bilateral Meetings on an annual basis. We will also have meetings of our Chiefs of Defence Forces on an annual basis and meetings of our defence officials at Deputy Secretary level also on an annual basis.

These won’t necessarily take place in Canada or Australia but may well take place in the margins of regional or multilateral forums which we attend.

We’ve also agreed that we will have a strategic dialogue on some of the key procurement, acquisition, capability and budget reform issues that both of us share.

Whether it’s Australia, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, other countries, we all live now in a world where budget restraint, where capability procurement and acquisition are very much live challenges and live issues and you’ve seen a substantial reform program from the Australian Government in the course of this year. We think there are very many shared experiences and we will have a formal strategic dialogue on that front.

We’re also, very pleased to announce, that Australia will obtain from Canada some anti-IED capability; protected vehicles with sensor capability in the vehicles. We will take use of these from early next year as Canada winds down its effort in Kandahar and so on a very practical front we are enhancing the anti-IED capability through being able to loan from Canada some very important equipment and there’s a formal statement to that effect to be released shortly.

In addition to Afghanistan, we also discussed Australia’s relationship with NATO and Australia’s keenness to develop our relationship with NATO to a strategic partnership with Canada as one of the very important Members of NATO.

We also discussed issues specific to NATO, in particular Libya – and Peter may well make some remarks in that respect – and more generally and closer to home discussed significant Asia-Pacific issues.

We also touched upon some capability issues that we share: Submarines and Joint Strike Fighters.

So, Peter, I’m very pleased to formally welcome you here. In the course of his visit today and tomorrow, Peter will also formally meet with the Foreign Minister, with the Minister for Defence Materiel, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Veteran’s Affairs. He will also, together with his High Commissioner and officials, have a formal roundtable with Defence officials.

So, Peter, if I could call upon you to make some opening remarks and we’ll then respond to your questions.

PETER MACKAY:   I’d be delighted. Stephen. Thank you firstly for your very kind hosting of myself and our delegation here and yesterday was a very poignant day, certainly for all, and I began the day by going first to your War Memorial and museum and then attending the 9/11 commemorative services here with your Prime Minister and some of your colleagues.

North Americans, of course, reflected, as did the world, on those events and looking back 10 years at lessons learned at what we try to do collectively in making the world a safer place leads me inevitably to the conclusion that Australia’s contributions, as our own, are making a huge difference in the world.

I couldn’t help but feel very sombre looking at the names at your memorial, as I have seen at similar memorials in our own country, in places around the world where Canada and Australia, as you’ve mentioned, Minister, have spent time contributing in an enormous way, in a substantial way, and the names that are etched in stone found on those memorials are a very firm reminder of the resilience that we share, of the resolve that we have demonstrated as nations, and our military, first and foremost, the sacrifice that they have made.

And let me say very clearly that our experience through NATO as a founding nation, what we have as common experience now in Afghanistan is truly a remarkable one, a relationship that is so unique and so significant in today’s world.

And there is a great deal that we, as Canadians, can learn from Australia and that’s why I’m so grateful to be here on your home turf, having these very substantive discussions on a whole range of topics which you have touched on.

Australia is a go-to nation, is a top-tier nation when it comes to the contributions that you’ve made not only in Afghanistan but throughout your history.

It’s instructive that we are able to not only build on that history but look to one another for lessons learned and that’s why I so value this opportunity to be here. We’ve had exchanges at a very high – the highest military level. Our Chief of Defence Staff has met with your Chief within the last year and formalising these discussions so that we can have annual exchanges, annual lessons learned, I think we will not only bring our own relationship but our capabilities, our interoperability, if you will, and our contributions to the world to new heights.

Afghanistan in particular is an example of where Australia has punched above its weight and I’m speaking in particular of the role that Australia has played in Regional Command South in Uruzgan Province, but throughout the country and, if I could highlight in particular the respect that our Canadian Forces have for yours and in the Special Forces community, Australia is a country that the world needs more of.

And that has been true in the mission, in Afghanistan, but it has been true on so many occasions throughout our history, going back, as you so rightly outlined, to the First World War. I think in particular of the history of Gallipoli.

And the shared history that we have, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment who landed on the shores near Gallipoli as well, is part of our shared history, as tragic and as sombre as that history is. It was really around the same time that our nations were making their mark in the world and coming into their own.

I’m very, very grateful for the fact that you have been so forthcoming in sharing information today at a military-to-military level.

Your history, Stephen, as Foreign Minister is again a shared history that I have in my own country. And I know at a personal level, we’ve been able to have very formidable discussions that matter to our countries.

We as Canada, like Australia, are going through challenges with respect to the world economic recession, and the impact that that has on all of our Departments. The Department of National Defence traditionally has been an area in which Finance Ministers have always looked to find savings. And for our part we will do what we have to do in order to contribute to that process and to see that the bottom line financially is achieved.

So to be able to have these discussions today and hear from some of the decision making and the transformation that you’re going through is extremely helpful when it comes to our own contemplation of how to prioritise things such as procurement, how to deal with some of the very challenging times that we face as far as our own operations and priorities within our Department.

And because we are like minded – because of those values that you mentioned are so prominent in our countries, I truly believe that if we were able to shrink the distance, we would be spending so much time within our own countries. I’m hopeful that by formalising some of these exchanges today as we discussed, one of which that I personally feel will be of benefit to our militaries is the exchanges that take place – the operations that we share, the exercises that we share, having perhaps a more formalised cadet exchange program. All of this will take us to new heights.

And I would simply conclude by saying I want to congratulate you on the opening win at the World Cup. Australia certainly showed up, particularly in the second half, but that is – and I make too many sports analogies – the world wants Australia on the field at all times. And we are always very proud to be there, to be conducting operations, and to look for new ways in which we can have a very, very productive, first rate relationship. And I’m confident that that will happen.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well Peter, thank you very much; Thank you for those very generous remarks. Peter has mentioned one thing which I’ll just touch upon before inviting questions. We’ve also agreed, as Peter indicated, to look at the possible formal exchange of some of our cadets from some of our institutions; Duntroon, ADFA and the like, and that’s a very good thing.

Finally, I should have mentioned in my opening remarks, Australia and Canada are of course members of the so called Five Eyes intelligence community: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

And so we work very closely on the intelligence front. And a point that Peter and I have both made publicly in recent days in the aftermath of 11 September, intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing, intelligence assessment is very much a high priority because that leads to prevention rather than to post-mortems and that’s an issue that we discussed this morning as well. We do have some time constraints, but I’m happy to invite questions.

JOURNALIST:   Mr McKay, in terms of Afghanistan, there’s a lot of commentary that’s steady contradictory – different organisations; even in the United States have different views on progress in the war and the likelihood of success in Afghanistan.

What’s the Canadian Government’s view at the moment? And your role is obviously transitioning from a combat role to a training role. Do you feel that the time’s right for that, and what’s your prognosis on how it’s going?

PETER MACKAY:   Well there’s no question that by any assessment, it has been a tough slog. We have come to the conclusion that our own contribution will now transition to this training posture in and around Kabul the capital. And our history there, like Australia’s, has been predominantly in the south in the Kandahar region – although we’ve had a presence in Kabul as well since the mission began back in 2001.

Much of the responsibility now has to be assumed by the Afghanistan Government and Afghanistan Security Forces. This is why we’ve made the informed decision that putting our emphasis now on training the Afghans, elevating their professional Army and their policing to a greater proficiency – a greater level of professionalism is where our focus will now be centred.

Having said that, in Kandahar province, Canadian forces have bled and have given significantly to the effort there. And is there a difference? Yes. I’ve seen it over the course of visits that I’ve made. We still of course receive extensive briefings that tell us that the climate is changing; that the culture of optimism now exists where it didn’t before.

And you can see the physical signs of change. The schools that are opened, the roads, the economy, the presence of their own Government in institutions that matter to the people of the south and that matter throughout the country. And now, a systematic turning over of responsibility at a province by province level tells me that much progress has been made, but not to be naïve, it’s volatile, it’s fragile, and that primary responsibility to maintain peace and order must be assumed by the Afghan Government.

Their security forces – and the last thing I would say, have come a long way when one considers where they were just a few short years ago – both in numbers and in capability. And Stephen and I both hear regular updates through NATO and through other lines from Minister Wardak, our counterpart, and through the military chain of command in Afghanistan. They’re able to now independently conduct operations. They’ve put great emphasis around their borders which has of course been an ongoing problem. And they are much more proactive in going out and engaging and protecting their own population, which is their responsibility.

And so, we are turning it over to them at a rate which we think is commensurate with their capability and we have nothing but admiration for the role that Australia has made in that progress.

We’ve seen first hand the courage, the commitment, and the tremendous capability that Australia has brought to this conflict.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Can I just add Peter’s been very generous in his remarks about Australia’s contribution. We should all, I think, bear in mind, the Canadian contribution, some 38,000 over the period since the start of Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Secondly, Canada, at one of the toughest and hardest fighting spots, Kandahar. And thirdly, in the face of 157 fatalities, has really put in a tremendous effort. And any nation of Canada’s size and population which suffers 157 fatalities sends a shudder through the community. And it’s great to Canada’s credit that it made such a substantial contribution in the face of such terrible losses.

As Peter has said, we strongly support the transition strategy and Canada’s contribution on the training front will be invaluable as we proceed towards the 2014 timetable for transition in Afghanistan.

JOURNALIST:   Minister, one of things that enable both our countries’ forces to do the work they do in Afghanistan is the work of locally based interpreters there. I’m wondering, can you tell me how you see Australia’s obligation to those people, both in a model sense, and financial sense and in an immigration sense to them and their families while they are working for our Government and after they are working for our Government after the transition? And maybe Minister MacKay has a view as well.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well in the first instance we have an obligation to their safety and security, and that is the basis up on which we proceed – that is the obvious starting point. Anything else which follows from that, particularly on the immigration front is something that can only be judged down the track. But in the first instance, we have an obligation – both a moral and a legal obligation to their safety and security. Often that is difficult because we continue to deal in difficult and dangerous circumstances. But that remains our primary obligation and the starting point.

JOURNALIST:   What about financial support?

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well financial support, I think is important. But you’ve got to deal with that on a case by case basis. Just as you have to deal with any potential immigration matters down the track on a case by case basis.

PETER MACKAY:   Our own experience, for what it’s worth, is similar in so far as we recognise the tremendous value added that interpreters have provided to the mission. They are at the sharp end with our soldiers. In many cases, they are out in the field and exposed.

And plus, their families of course, their huge stress and potential threat of blackmail repercussions for what they’re doing. It was with that in mind that we did set up a special program within our Immigration Department to allow for expedited process to have them come to Canada.

Now, our experience, quite frankly has not been as positive as we would have liked; it has taken greater time to work through the detail of that program that was set up. And so I’m not suggesting for a minute that we’ve perfected this ability to try to have those Afghan interpreters come to Canada, should they choose to – and their families. But we felt a necessity to recognise the special contribution that they’ve made.

And if I could, without sounding too maudlin, one of the other indicators, to come back to the earlier question, of the change, is the education of women in particular and girls that are now able to go to school. If somebody asked me what is the one difference in that country that you can point to, I would say it is the fact that young girls are now being educated, still a big challenge, still at considerable risk.

But our – I think one of our lasting legacies – and that of Australia as well – will be the setting up of schools, the support for teachers in the education system that is more inclusive, and that has to be preserved, in my view. That is one of the pillars of that country that will allow them to have a future and to have hope.

And when you see those children now out playing, going to school, having access to both education and immunisation programs against health problems that can only point to a brighter future for Afghanistan.

JOURNALIST:   Minister, last week we had the funeral of Private Matthew Lambert which wasn’t attended by either the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader. Is that the way it’s going to be from now on, or is that just the wish of the family on that particular occasion?

STEPHEN SMITH:   It was the wish of the family on that occasion. And when there is a terrible tragedy, as Matthew Lambert’s death was, as were the previous 28, the starting point in terms of any attendance or contact is what is the wish of the family, and that is absolutely respected. And as you know yourself, from time to time there is a request by the family to absolutely respect privacy, and that’s respected as well. So the funeral last Monday was conducted in accordance with the family’s wishes, as it should be.

JOURNALIST:   Minister MacKay, Rob Taylor from Reuters. I just wanted to ask you: as I understand it, your Government is looking at a review of military spending and reorganisation in the military. Minister Smith mentioned you discussed the Joint Strike Fighter. Australia has raised some concerns about the mounting cost and delays with that project.

Is that something that your Government is also reconsidering, that capability? Could it be changed as part of that review? Have you discussed anything along those lines?

PETER MACKAY:   Well, Rob, I’ll be very frank with you. We’re not looking at backing away from our commitment to purchase and procure the Joint Strike Fighter. Having said that, we share all of the concerns that have been expressed by Minister Smith, and others; including our predecessor Minister in the United States, Bob Gates.

I’ve been to the plant in Texas and spoken directly with Lockheed Martin officials. The good news from our perspective – and I believe it’s echoed here in Australia – is that the model of Joint Strike Fighter that we are actually purchasing is moving forward on time and on target in terms of its costs, we’re told. And we base, we base our information on what we’re receiving from their officials.

There have been difficulties with the vertical takeoff, or the marine version as they call it, and the aircraft carrier. So to that extent, we have been given some degree of comfort that it’s moving forward. We’re purchasing 65 Joint Strike Fighters. We are purchasing them at a time when they will be in peak production around 2014/15.

Our fleet of F18s, Hornets, will have to be taken out of use around 2017. So there is a degree of urgency for us when it comes to this procurement being on time and being on cost.

To your point the discussion around transformation with our own military; the budgetary constraints. It’s very helpful and instructive to look at how Australia has put together their White Paper, looked at various things such as amphibiosity, having those Amphibious Ships. We have challenges, to say the least – not to open a kettle of fish here around Submarines – and we have also recognised that there is a need for greater efficiencies and effectiveness when it comes to how a department of our size and your own is operating.

So Stephen Smith’s speech on their transformation, which I read some time ago, has been extremely helpful in the Canadian context of how we’re moving forward and dealing with some of the same set issues.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Just on Joint Strike Fighter. Joint Strike Fighters and Submarines were two of the capability issues that we referred to. Our position on Joint Strike Fighters I’ll restate. We’ve committed ourselves to 14. The White Paper or the Defence Capability Plan talks in terms of ultimately a number up to or around 100, but we’ve committed to 14. Any further over and that we’ll make on a deliberative basis.

I’ve made the point before we are very concerned about rubbing up against our schedule. So we’ll do an exhaustive risk assessment in the course of next year and make a judgment next year about whether we need any transition capability and the obvious – whilst we’ve made no decision on this, the obvious possibility for us is more Super Hornets.

But Peter’s made the same point I’ve made in the past, which is we have the advantage of ordering and being involved and interested in the conventional variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, or the so-called CTOL version, that’s had far less difficulties in terms of trialing and testing.

So our primary concerns are schedule – we’ll make a judgment about that in the course of next year. On Submarines we’ve agreed to exchange our experiences on Submarines, which has been a challenge for both of us, and we’ll put both of those essentially under the context of doing a formal strategic dialogue on all of these strategic reform capability acquisition budget matters.

JOURNALIST:   Sharing of sort of Submarine designs or ideas?

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well, I think that’s getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

JOURNALIST:   Couldn’t you say we’re looking at a transitional capability? Are you saying that there may never be more than 14 individual Joint Strike Fighters?

STEPHEN SMITH:   No, no, no. The point I made in the United States and the point I’d made here, we’re now starting to rub up against our capability schedule. The last thing I will allow to occur with our procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter is a gap in capability. We have Hornets, which is an ageing fleet; they have some years to go. We have Super Hornets.

The last thing I will allow will be a gap in our capability for our air combat capability. And if I am concerned or worried or not persuaded there won’t be a gap in terms of delivery of the Joint Strike Fighters, then an obvious option for us is more Super Hornets. We’ve made no decision to that effect.

But the start and end, so far as I’m concerned and the Government is concerned, is that we won’t allow a gap in capability. I’ve made the point publicly on a number of occasions. I’ve always been of the view that this project would get up because the United States is absolutely committed to the capability. The risk for Australia and other partners like Canada is on the delivery side, on the schedule side and also on the cost side.

One of the points we have to bear very carefully in mind is the extent to which, if at all, there will be a reduction in the number of orders from US Navy and US Air Force as a result of the budget constraints that they are currently facing.

JOURNALIST:   On the capability issues, what’s the gear we’re getting from in Canada. How many are there? Are we buying them outright or-

STEPHEN SMITH:   Well, we’re loaning them. Essentially, it is three protected vehicles which have either an inbuilt radar or detection capability, and so detection of IEDs can be done from within the vehicle itself. And secondly, an arm, a metallic arm which can be used to defuse the IEDs rather than having Sappers physically go out and deal with them.

And as Canada winds down its troops, troop numbers in Kandahar, the capability is available, and it’s a very good cooperative venture that we have struck upon. We will utilise what is, in anecdotal terms, a road clearance capability and capacity to add to our anti-IED measures, and we’re very grateful that Peter and the Canadian Army have agreed to that loan arrangement.

In the meantime, we are looking at whether it’s appropriate for us to acquire a permanent capability. But the precise detail will be released in a statement later today.

PETER MACKAY:   If I could just add this. This type of equipment is lifesaving. It’s that simple. I can’t put it any other way. In our experience in Afghanistan around IEDs, which are the scourge of this war, that have taken so many lives – and I should take the opportunity to express my condolences to the family of all 29 of the brave Australians who’ve given their lives in this conflict and those that have been injured.

This type of warfare is not going away. And with that in mind, the advances that have been made on the technical side of equipment and the efforts to pre-empt and prevent IED strikes is something that all countries have to work in very close proximity in the sharing both of technology advances and equipment in this case. And the Americans have been very forthcoming in sharing some of the same equipment, MRAPS in particular, and the up-armoured vehicles that are able to withstand these type of blasts. As the equipment becomes more sophisticated and more protective, sadly the terrorists have made the bombs bigger and more destructive.

And so working in this particular area, I feel, is extremely important because wherever we find ourselves next – and the chances are Canada and Australia will be there in unison – sharing this type of equipment and making these types of contributions to one another is a high point, in my view, of our military operability and interoperability and capability.

STEPHEN SMITH:   Two of the vehicles are Huskies-

PETER MACKAY:   That’s right.

STEPHEN SMITH:   -a very rough equivalent of our Bushmaster. But the two that we’re picking up essentially have a ground radar detection capacity.

The second vehicle has what is technically described as an interrogation arm so that a robotic part of the vehicle can deal with the IEDs in advance of Sappers on the ground. And as Peter has said, it’s a very helpful additional capability for us to have in addition to the other capability that we use against the IEDs.

But to speak in very rough terms, the Husky has been as successful for Canada as the Bushmaster has been for Australia in terms of providing a protected vehicle on the ground for our troops in Afghanistan.

We’re starting to run up against time constraints. So unless there’s something really pressing, I think we’ll thank Peter for his visit and his contribution today, and thank you for attending. Thank you.

PETER MACKAY:   Thank you.

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:  30 AUGUST 2011

TOPICS: Manufacturing; Amphibious Ships; DMP; Libya.

DAVID SPEERS:           Stephen Smith thanks for your time. Unions are worried about what they say is the crisis in manufacturing at the moment. One thing they’re looking at is for the Government to spend a bit more on defence projects here in Australia.

What can you say to them about what is being spent, what’s planned to be spent on local manufacturing?

STEPHEN SMITH:        Well one illustration is today. Today Jason Clare and I have announced four capability projects which the Government has announced. The main one is the purchase of nearly 1000 four-wheel drives, training vehicles for Army. That will see work done both in Queensland, in Brisbane, and also in Newcastle in New South Wales. That’s a $400 million project, so that’s one illustration of what we do, essentially on an annual basis there’s nearly $6 billion goes into Australian economy from Defence procurement capability, maintenance, sustainment.

DAVID SPEERS:        Has that increased or decreased?

STEPHEN SMITH:      It increases over time.

Since the Government – since the White Paper in 2009 we’ve seen the Government adopt an additional $7 billion worth of projects.

Now it’s always been the case, it will always be the case that some of that is military off the shelf from overseas and some is produced here.

There are some very good illustrations of what occurs here.

Recently I announced 101 additional Bushmasters so that’s very important for local industry, in particular for regional Victoria.

Submarine maintenance and sustainment, even though we have some very serious challenges so far as submarines is concerned,  that’s very important for South Australia in particular but also for Western Australia. And building ships, the Air Warfare Destroyers, we’re currently building those in shipyards in Newcastle, in Melbourne and also in South Australia.

And the maintenance and sustainment of our fleet, our amphibious fleet, also brings a lot of work to Sydney. So on a regular ongoing basis there is plenty of Defence work for local industry to do.

DAVID SPEERS:           Speaking of shipbuilding, a couple of weeks ago or just less than a couple of weeks you announced HMAS Kanimbla was being retired and your expectation was that HMAS Tobruk, the only remaining amphibious landing ship would come out of maintenance, which it’s in at the moment, in time for the cyclone season in Queensland. What’s the latest on that though?

STEPHEN SMITH:        It will still come out of maintenance for the cyclone season which commences end of October, early November. There was an expectation, which I indicated previously that it might come out or would come out for a short period of time for sea trials at the end of this month. That won’t now occur.  As part of its maintenance program we’ve discovered a difficulty with the fire suppressant system so there’s no point putting it out for sea trials, but we remain on track for it to come out of its previously scheduled maintenance ready for the cyclone season-

DAVID SPEERS:           But in the next couple of months until that happens what do we have in the way of-

STEPHEN SMITH:        Well very importantly as the Government has addressed this issue, very importantly at every step in the process we’ve made sure that we’ve had additional heavy amphibious lift capability. Currently we have the Ocean Protector which is there providing the heavy amphibious lift capability if we require it. I’ve previously indicated that from the middle of October, beginning of November I’ll announce additional capability to make sure that we’re covered until the HMAS Choules or the Largs Bay arrives and is ready for service in January.

So we’ve been meticulous about making sure that every step in the process we’ve got some back up which is additional to the back up that we’ve agreed with New Zealand with effective joint use of the HMNZ Canterbury.

DAVID SPEERS:           On another matter are you able to confirm the reports that the director of military prosecutions has now dropped – decided not to proceed with a court martial against the Lieutenant Colonel who commanded that raid on the compound in Afghanistan in which five children and one adult were killed?

STEPHEN SMITH:        Well I was asked about this last week and I indicated that yesterday there would be a directions hearing before the Advocate General, and I also indicated I’d received advice from the independent Director of Military Prosecutions that she wasn’t proposing to proffer evidence.

Yesterday the directions hearing occurred, the Advocate General gave leave for the charges against the Lieutenant Colonel to be withdrawn, so there’s effectively no conviction against him. The Advocate General also awarded that his name, quite appropriately, be suppressed. And so those three matters, there were two previous charges against two soldiers, a Sergeant and a Corporal, which were not proceeded with as well.

DAVID SPEERS:           This charging of the three of them in relation to a wartime incident drew a lot of criticism from within the military. Do you still have confidence in the military prosecutor Brigadier Lyn McDade who recommended those charges?

STEPHEN SMITH:        Well two things; firstly yes I do have confidence in her. These have been matters which she has dealt with in accordance with the independent exercise of her discretion. But given these were the first manslaughter charges brought in the fog of war, in the theatre of war in living memory what I flagged last week I’m now proposing to indicate and do formally, given the importance of these matters both to military justice and to our own experience, I’m proposing to ask the Director of Military Prosecutions to now provide to me a comprehensive assessment of these three matters and the circumstances that led to the outcomes that we’ve seen.

Now that’s not to judge or tilt the lever one way or the other. This has been the first occasion where three of our soldiers have been charged effectively with manslaughter during actual combat-

DAVID SPEERS:           And you want some clarity about how that happened?

STEPHEN SMITH:        I just want now, while the dust has settled, for us to have the opportunity of a comprehensive assessment of that. So I’ll ask that initially of the Director of Military Prosecutions and subsequently, as you would expect, I’ll get the advice of the Secretary of the Department and the Chief of the Defence Force.

I of course didn’t want to do that while these matters were on foot because they needed to be dealt with independently by the military prosecutor but also by the court martial itself.

DAVID SPEERS:           A final question on Libya. Algeria has now taken in members of Colonel Qaddafi’s family, he remains at large. Are you comfortable with Algeria taking in his family members?

STEPHEN SMITH:        Well that’s a matter for Algeria. Australia’s view remains that Colonel Qaddafi should walk off the stage; he should instruct his troops to lay down their arms. We have seen a lessening of fighting around Tripoli itself, but of course we’ve also heard very serious and terrible tales about torture and also increasing humanitarian concerns, access to food and access to water. We welcome the fact that NATO has made it clear that its operation will continue under the United Nations Security Council resolution. We’re the third largest humanitarian contributor to Libya and we stand ready, willing and able to contribute more if that’s required.

The Acting Foreign Minister, Craig Emerson, I understand will be involved in the Libyan contact group talks towards the end of this week. I’ve previously made it clear that if a C17 or a C130 is required to move civilians in distress then that’s open to us, but for the present we welcome the fact that fighting around Tripoli has receded, but we do want Gaddafi to instruct his troops to cease firing so that Libya can go into a transition phase post Qaddafi.

DAVID SPEERS:           Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, thank you.

STEPHEN SMITH:        Thank you.

STEPHEN SMITH, MP

TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH LYNDAL CURTIS, ABC 24

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 25 MAY 2011

TOPICS: Passing of Sergeant Brett Woods; Afghanistan and insurgents; Defence Security Authority.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     Stephen Smith, welcome to News 24.

STEPHEN SMITH:     My pleasure.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     Does the death of Brett Wood change the Government’s attitude to Afghanistan? You said the last time you were in this studio that you were a bit more optimistic about the prospects, but Sergeant Wood’s death must [indistinct] that optimism somewhat.

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well any death is a terrible tragedy for the family concerned and it’s a terrible blow to the nation. So the wind is always taken out of your sails when a tragedy and a fatality occurs.

But, as a general proposition, we do believe we’ve made progress in the last 12 months; that we’ve consolidated some gains over the winter months. We’ve always known that we had to steal ourselves for the current northern summer fighting season and that further fatalities, further casualties were in prospect. And it’s deeply sad that it’s occurred so soon into the current fighting season, but our resolve remains. We believe we’re on track to effect a transition to Afghan-led security responsibility in Uruzgan Province by the end of 2014.  And we are also – our own analysis is that applies equally to Afghanistan generally.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     Two other soldiers were injured seriously in the incident which killed Sergeant Brett Woods, and three other soldiers were injured in another incident. Do you have an update on their condition?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well firstly, on the three who were injured in the separate incident, they are all satisfactory. At no stage were any of their injuries at the serious; or very serious level. I’m very pleased to be able to indicate that the latest advice I have this morning is that the two who are seriously injured are now in a satisfactory condition. They’re both in an International Security Assistance Force medical facility in Afghanistan, and so we’re now confident that they will make a full recovery.  That’s very good news, because they have variously been listed as seriously ill or very seriously ill.  So they’re now satisfactory and stable and that’s a very good thing for them and a great relief to their families and a great relief to us.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     You say Australian troops – the forces are making ground in Afghanistan.  There’s a report in the West Australian, which you may not have seen, that says Australian forces have killed around 1500 insurgents in the last 12 months.  Do you know if that figure is factual, if that’s the sort of scale of effort there’s been against the insurgents?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Well firstly, I need to say I’m highly embarrassed that I haven’t seen that report in my own newspaper, the West Australian, so you’ve got me – you’ve got me on a bad day in that respect.

I think it’s important to make this point, which the Prime Minister made yesterday; we have suffered, now, 24 terrible fatalities.  In a quantitative sense, or measure, the Taliban casualties are much larger.  I don’t think it actually helps to do that statistical analysis.  I’m not running away from it.  What is more important than a statistical analysis is capacity to hold ground in a security sense and then to be able to transfer that to Afghan security forces, in particular the Afghan Police, to enable, if you like, more appropriate security mechanisms.  When the Afghan Police are running affairs you know that you’ve got a good level of security control. 

So my measure of the progress we’re making in Uruzgan Province is not the number of insurgents that we’ve killed, or capture, or removed from the battleground, it’s the way in which we have very substantially extended our patrol bases and very substantially allowed the local Uruzgan people to now conduct themselves generally in a normal way in areas that 12 months or two years ago we would have believed that that was impossible.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     So it’s not only the gaining ground, but the holding it and the transferring of power, that’s the-

STEPHEN SMITH:     It’s-

LYNDAL CURTIS:     -measure of success.

STEPHEN SMITH:     -it’s wresting the ground from the Taliban.  It’s holding that ground.  It’s transferring responsibility to Afghan security forces, both Afghan National Army and police.  Having the confidence to know that when that transfer has occurred, that the ordinary people of Uruzgan can go about their daily lives without the ever present fear of attack by the Taliban.

Now again underlining the point that we have made it clear that the gains in the ground that we have made up is tenuous.  There will be a fight back.  We do need to consolidate and, in addition to Taliban efforts to recover that ground, there will also be the high profile suicide bombing and propaganda-type attacks which we have seen a number of in recent times.

LYNDAL CURTIS:     Now there are a few things happening in other areas of your portfolio.  Lateline reported that there have been questions raised about security checks on civilian and military personnel working in military bases, alleging they had been fabricated.  There’s been an inquiry launched into that.  Do you have any update?

STEPHEN SMITH:     Yes, I’ve just in the last 24 hours or so received a preliminary report from not just the Secretary of my Department, by the Inspector General of Defence and a number of points it’s important to make.  Firstly, as soon as these allegations were raised on Lateline we took them very seriously. I immediately asked the Secretary of the Department to institute an investigation led by the Inspector General of Defence.

The preliminary advice is essentially that we’re dealing here with security clearances for Defence personnel only.  This was done by the Defence Security Authority before we moved to a more general Australian Government vetting agency.  So we’re dealing with security clearances for defence personnel firstly.

Secondly, we’re dealing here with the very first instance of crunching data into computers, so the whistleblowers or the persons concerned were data entry people.  There are a range of layers of scrutiny and checking that these materials – this matter had to go through before a security clearance could be granted.  So it was the start of the process, not the end of the process.  Importantly what our investigation has uncovered is that whilst we don’t believe there’s been a wholesale security breech, we do want to essentially run down every security clearance that was given over this period of time and that will be affected. 

It’s also – we’ve also – it’s also been drawn to attention that the whistleblowers concerned have previously raised issues about workplace arrangements, harassment and the like, and that was investigated earlier.  It’s now clear that some of the suggestions made on Lateline were made in general terms earlier.  They weren’t picked up by the Defence Security Authority.  They should have been picked up by the Defence Security Authority and so there’s been an oversight in that respect as well, which is regrettable.

What I’m currently doing is giving consideration to whether the Inspector General of Defence might need some further assistance as he effects a more complete inquiry into each of the individual security clearances and the possibility include either the current Inspector General of Security, or one of her predecessors, but I’m giving some consideration to that now.

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

STEPHEN SMITH:     Thank you.  Thanks very much.

MS-Word Version