Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

This is an important topic for debate and should be approached in a rational and, insofar as it is possible, detailed way in the time available. I think it is fair to say that the government lauds its own national security credentials. Very frequently we see our defence forces being used as the backdrop for photographs to enhance its public perception in that respect. In that context the government’s dismissal of the significance of complaints from serving men and women regarding the quality of equipment that has been provided to them is somewhat hypocritical. It is also very concerning that there has been a lack of complete frankness on the part of the publicity section of the Department of Defence itself, which I would describe as the media section. For instance, the Australian newspaper reported this on Monday:

A Defence Department spokesman confirmed that the department’s inspector-general—

that is, the Inspector-General of the ADF—

was “actively investigating” the department’s Combat Clothing section.

“It is not appropriate therefore to comment further, given there is an investigation presently taking place,” he said.

Senate estimates was just told that there is no such investigation by the Inspector-General of the ADF. Such investigation as is taking place is by the head of the DMO, Mr Stephen Gumley, and his deputy in respect of certain matters—in particular, revelations that three officers within the DMO are the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and a further supervisor looks as though he, at the very least, may be moved to another position. We do not intend to focus on the identities of those individuals other than to say there are obviously some significant issues that need to be investigated in respect of the operation of the DMO in this particular area of tendering.

The Chief of Army indicated to Senate estimates that there had been some 147 RODUMS—documents which enable complaints by serving men and women regarding their equipment—submitted in the last 18 months. Again, it is not clear, but we suspect that is as a result of grouping of the RODUMS, a practice that was criticised by the Inspector-General of the ADF in his report of December last year.

There are certainly concerns. I do not put this accusation to the current minister, but there has been a tendency, when the opposition has raised national security issues as they apply to the service conditions of serving men and women, for there to be an endeavour to portray those issues—or our method of raising them—as being in some way unpatriotic or in some way evoking concern in the partners of serving personnel overseas. That is not an issue. We accept that every endeavour has been made by the defence chiefs to ensure that our troops deployed on operations are given the very best equipment available. We accept that as their intention. We are talking about a broader matter that relates to conditions and occupational health and safety—if not, potentially, to safety in a combat situation. By way of example, I have some 54 RODUMs in front of me here. By way of informing the House of the sorts of complaints made, here is a complaint by a serviceman in respect of his field pack:

Pack contains insufficient room to carry all equipment that is required to complete task. Also, pack is uncomfortable and causes skin to be rubbed off from mid to lower back. It also puts increasing pressure onto the spine and the lower lumbar area of the back and causes neck strain.

That pack may not be one used in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is still a significant issue. Another complaint concerning a pack is as follows:

Pack is too large. It has adequate pouches on the side. However, inside is too large. When placed on an Alice frame, there is too much overhang. This causes the pack to catch on foliage. The overhang does not allow fast movement when running as it bounces all over the place. When sitting on the ground and trying to get up, the weight then moves to one side, making the pack unstable, and falls over …

Presumably the service man or woman also falls over as part of the package. A report by a sniper states:

As a sniper I require access to equipment while patrolling. Lying static or when stalking with a yowie suit—

which are the suits the snipers wear, as I understand it, when they hide in the trees—

... the basic webbing is not effective for our role and the possibility of losing equipment is high.

That is obviously a pretty dire predicament for a sniper in position. That is a sample of some of the complaints. There are complaints from serving men and women—there is no doubt about that. Those complaints must be acknowledged. A perusal of those three complaints shows that they are of substance, and they are having an effect. This is an issue that requires attention by the government.

The Australian newspaper carried a report—which the minister is aware of and has responded to—on two documents. I have not seen those documents first-hand, but there is no reason to doubt the quotation from those documents. The documents related to jackets being defective insofar as they glowed at night; helmets with defective bracing on them; and helmets that potentially obscured views of land mines if troop members were lying on the ground. The documents reported that females, because of hip sizes, are required to wear jackets that are too big, obstructing their hands when they are holding their weapons. We have been informed at the Senate estimates hearings that those jackets are going to be replaced, and that is to be encouraged.

There have been complaints about body armour not fitting the body precisely because of inadequate attachments and complaints about packs, which we have heard about. Boots are a real issue. I have seen, first-hand, photographs of some horrific instances of damage to feet as a result of boots. There have been reports of RAAF flying jackets with screen printing of camouflage over the material which has prevented the material from breathing and caused heat stress in those who wear them.

These complaints have been presented by service personnel. They are real. They should not be dismissed lightly; nor should they be dismissed because only seven of the 147 RODUMs, or complaints from personnel, have come from personnel serving in operations. The seven that have come from personnel serving overseas obviously need careful attention. We would expect that to happen as a matter of course. These complaints are supported by the Australian Defence Association. Neil James, who is not known to be hysterical on these matters, has said:

There have been some big complaints at bigger level recently about load bearing equipment, particularly webbing.

That is an example. As for reports about the adequacy of ballistic goggles, one serviceman is quoted as saying that those on standard issue are little better than ski goggles. I would trust that those in the ASLAVs and so forth have more sophisticated goggles than that, but the standard issue is certainly in that category. Don Rowe, the Deputy National President of the RSL, an organisation not known for its hysteria in these sorts of matters, said:

The RSL has been aware for some time that the issue of personal equipment hasn’t been up to what we would deem to be satisfactory.

He has referred to the fact that a lot of troops are purchasing their own equipment—and we have certainly heard that. It has been said—as you would expect to be the case—that as a result of the passion our troops have for their craft they may want to go out and buy a particular item of clothing, a particular pack or a particular set of sunglasses, for instance; and the Chief of Army said these were more matters of fashion than function. We accept that, but nonetheless there are all too many reports that the purchase of equipment is not to simply address matters of fashion but to overcome inadequacies such as the complaints we have heard about backpacks. Indeed, a spokesman for Crossfire, which is a company selling military equipment from Braidwood, said that he had had reports from soldiers who are disgusted and demoralised about their equipment:

I have spoken to thousands of soldiers who all say they cannot operate at full efficiency because of poor equipment. This failure places their lives at risk.

That last part is his comment, rather than that of an expert, but nonetheless it was based on his communications with serving men and women. He says:

I know soldiers who have reluctantly left the Army because they are fed up with a system that does not value them as soldiers.

One soldier appeared on the 7.30 Report during January and said precisely that.

What has been the government’s response to that? Firstly—and again I recognise that this was prior to the current minister’s time—they put pressure on this serviceman, who had actually served in Timor and Iraq, to close down a website that facilitated complaints from other service personnel. Indeed, a briefing note from mid-2004 called for ‘an information offensive to counter criticism of combat clothing and field equipment by internet sites, the media and an increasing number of soldiers’. It is all too dismissive but, worse than that, obstructive, and the misinformation that has been given by the publicity section of the Department of Defence this week is totally inexcusable and quite offensive.

These are problems that have to be acknowledged. Indeed, I should say that the documentation obtained by the Australian newspaper was only obtained because they had the resources to pay for a legal team to challenge the government’s objection to the production of the documentation before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

But the truth is important. Getting to the bottom of the matter is important—in the public interest, in the national interest. It is obviously crucial to issues of national security, all the more so because it applies to the terms and conditions of and the basic recognition and respect for serving men and women and their preparedness to both join and—more significantly—remain in the defence forces.

If you look at the facts that have come out, we have seen instances of officers of the DMO being responsible for crafting a proposed tender, then obtaining employment with the company that won the tender. That is certainly on the record as an event that has occurred, placing that officer in not only a potential but, we would put forward, an actual conflict of interest. We have seen instances of officers of the DMO actually providing private finance to a potential supplier of military equipment—that is, their personal finance to keep that company afloat when it was facing financial difficulties—and, subsequently, one of those officers at least being involved in approving a tender from that corporation, despite the requirement in the procurement guidelines that they have regard to the financial capacity of the company. We have also seen officers involved—and I understand that this may be the subject of disciplinary action, at least for two officers—in a process of alleged prescriptive tendering, so that a particular company had a greater likelihood of succeeding in the tender.

These systems failures that have been brought out by the media and by freedom of information requests are occurring in the Defence Materiel Organisation, at least in the combat clothing and equipment section. The situation cries out for the Auditor-General to be called in to go through this section with a fine toothcomb. Clearly there is no investigation by the inspector-general of defence. That makes it all the more imperative for the Auditor-General to come through here. As the Defence Association said, nothing less will assure the Australian people and, more significantly, our serving men and women that this issue is being treated with such seriousness that these systems failures and potential issues of corrupt conduct are addressed, so that they can be satisfied that the equipment provided to them will be the very best equipment available.

See this speech in context