Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

In terms of dealing with this issue, I come to the portfolio with an open mind, strongly committed to the government’s policies and programs. I will take the issues and the individuals with whom I will be dealing with an open mind, and I will exercise what I hope will be the correct judgment in relation to them.

There are two issues here. One is the quality of the equipment which is provided for Australia’s service men and women. The second issue is the system which actually delivers that equipment, the so-called procurement arrangements which support it. Within the Australian defence forces there is a system called RODUM, the reporting of defective and unsatisfactory materiel. It is an excellent initiative. It means that any Army, Navy or Air Force person can formally register a complaint, a criticism, an idea, a suggestion or a proposal of some sort in relation to the equipment with which they have been issued. Essentially, it is a quality assurance arrangement. It is a feedback system.

So our defence personnel fill in these forms. The forms go back to Defence headquarters and they are analysed. They go principally to three groups: one is the Australian Defence Force itself, the second is defence industry and the third is the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Safety issues of course are dealt with immediately by the appropriate service from which the complaint may have come. Some issues require a combination of Defence itself and defence industry to consider them and then make an adjustment in response, and some then also involve DSTO—which I will explain in a minute—because science is sometimes required in addressing the issues.

What happened was this: the Australian newspaper, for which I have a very high regard—and for that reason I was surprised by the way in which it treated this issue, but that is its prerogative—put in a freedom of information request for this RODUM system. In other words, the Defence Force’s internal quality assurance arrangements, which provide the feedback on equipment, were going into the public arena. It was published on Saturday, in the Weekend Australian, under a headline that alleged that Australian troops were put at some risk because of defective equipment. The reality is that, when you go through the report about defective and unsatisfactory materiel and you unpack it, it is at best sensationalist. I must say that, if I were in the shoes of a father or mother whose son or daughter was currently on deployment, I would find it cruel in some ways. The issues about financial arrangements in the DMO are, however, another matter, and I will get to them in a moment.

The reality is that we currently have 60,000 army boots on issue. In the 19 months of this RODUM feedback system, there were 61 reports about boots—from 60,000 army boots that are out there. Of those 61, half were about laces and eyelets. As General Peter Cosgrove, former Chief of Defence and Chief of Army, and General Leahy have said, it is difficult to imagine an Army where someone was not complaining about boots and, unfortunately, getting blisters from them. Nonetheless, as a response to those complaints—and 61 complaints means that 0.001 per cent of all army boots have had some complaint made about them—those who provide army boots for our Defence personnel are now being specifically trained to be even better at fitting out people with boots.

We heard from the member for Barton about combat packs. There are 50,000 combat packs currently on issue in the Australian Defence Force. There are 19 different types of combat packs. Out of those 50,000, there have been 45 complaints. There are as many complaints about their being too small as there are about their being too big. Of course, it is always a matter of preference whether a particular soldier prefers one pack to another.

There was a report about combat fleece jackets which ‘glow in the dark’. There are 79,000 combat fleece jackets on issue. There have been 26 complaints about them. These jackets are not intended to be camouflage for troops who are on deployment. The criticism or the concern was that they might reflect light, and ultraviolet light in particular, but it needs to be understood that they can only be seen with night vision goggles, which increase the close infrared and reflected light 700,000 times. They are not intended nor are they used as camouflage when in the field. Nonetheless, in response to the RODUM feedback, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation worked with Army to develop a new material which would not reflect light and therein be seen by night vision goggles. That is now incorporated into the disrupted pattern Army attire and is currently in the process of being incorporated into combat fleece jackets.

We were also told that our soldiers were at risk, allegedly, because of defective body armour. There are 1,793 pieces of body armour on issue to Australian troops. In that 19-month period there were nine RODUMs, or nine concerns expressed, three of which were about cracking. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Army tested them for their antiballistic capacity and, because they are partly woven, they were still found to be 100 per cent effective in preventing missiles penetrating them. Nonetheless, a new lightweight non-cracking body armour has been produced.

I just heard the member for Barton talking about helmets. There are 6,000 helmets on issue. There were five criticisms about helmets. Two of them related to helmets that are only used in training. One complaint related to padding. There was one concern expressed about the Kevlar armoured helmet. With regard to looking at a claymore mine, a claymore mine is some 10 to 20 centimetres in height. In order to look at a claymore mine, a soldier has to lie prone—flat out on the ground. Under those circumstances, it is not possible to see a claymore mine with anything on your head—unless for some reason the thing is transparent, and that would still distort the vision. It is only done, I am advised by the Chief of Army, for about 30 seconds, with a soldier being protected by approximately 30 other soldiers. Nonetheless, a new combat helmet has been developed and has been provided in the first instance to our deployed troops.

On Saturday, the Chief of Army responded to this, and he said a number of things at a press conference. He said:

One of the things I would really like to do is to reassure all Australians, particularly the families and mums and dads, that the equipment that we are issuing to our soldiers to deploy forward on combat operations is amongst the best in the world. These people, frankly, are our mates. We are not going to ask them to go into these very difficult and demanding conditions without making sure they are as well equipped, as well trained, as well prepared and as well led as we can make them. We want them to come home. We are looking after them.

I noticed, when I quoted the Chief of Defence and the Chief of Army in seeking to reassure Australians about this, that the Australian newspaper editorial said, ‘It’s all very well for the minister to quote the Chief of Army and the heavies and all that sort of stuff.’ Normally I would agree with that: you always burrow to where the grassroots people, if I can use that expression, are—in this case those are our foot soldiers—to find out what the real issues are. But at that same press conference there were two sergeants, and this was not reported. One was Sergeant Moriarty, who is a soldier from the Armoured Corps. He was deployed on combat operations in the security attachment in Baghdad, Iraq. He drives and commands the light armoured vehicles and he is supported by Sergeant Crump, who recently trained in the First Division at Camp Pendleton in the United States Marine Corps.

Sergeant Moriarty, who was just back from Iraq, was asked if he had ever felt that lives had been put at risk because of inadequate equipment. He said: ‘No I don’t. I think the fact that we received minor casualties only, particularly when an incendiary device hit an ASLAV, where troops from other countries that are over there die, is testament to our equipment and our training.’ They were then asked about boots not fitting properly and so on, and Sergeant Crump said, ‘Having worn boots that were made by a number of different armies, I only wear ours now because by far they are superior for what we do and where we work.’ Sergeant Moriarty, by the way, was then asked whether he went and bought his own goggles, and he said:

Absolutely not. Whilst in Iraq there was an issue initially. We got a lot of information from the Americans that incendiary devices were damaging their troops’ eyes. Within two days we had $170 goggles which are ballistic protection—in two days. So no, I don’t. I have never bought anything of that nature for operational service.

In fact, this being reported back to our troops on deployment in the Middle East, an email was sent to the Chief of Army by the regimental sergeant major—they are the guys with the big sticks, for those of us who are civilians—of a special operations task group. He said:

Sir,

I have spoken extensively to those who have deployed in rotations 1 and 2 of Operation Slipper and have had nothing but praise for the type of and standard of equipment. I would say everyone is happy. People will always buy gear that’s different, in many cases because it is different. On the whole I have found there are only slight gripes and certainly no big issues.

The other issue, as I said, relates to the management of this particular area. What happened was that the combat clothing area was moved into the Land Systems Division in July 2004 following some issues which had arisen in the distribution of soldiers’ equipment. The Soldier Support Systems Program Office was established in July 2004 specifically to deal with some issues that had been identified in the distribution of materiel and tendering issues. The Soldier Support Systems Program Office director was appointed. Then in July 2005 it was restructured to give that person significantly more hands-on control over tendering arrangements. In October 2005 it became a requirement that the chief engineer approve all materiel before it was on-sent to soldiers. By the way, there are 33,000 light items with $22 million a year turnover in this particular area. Then in November 2005 all of the authorities for requests for tender were revoked and instead put in the hands solely of the director of the Soldier Support Systems Program Office.

The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force had a look at these arrangements late last year, and a report was made available to the Department of Defence. A number of things have been initiated since, including specific training of staff in this area in fraud, ethics and working with and managing people in terms of tenders. The only people that have any financial authority or responsibility at the moment are those who have specific training to have it. As I said, all authorities for requests for tender were revoked. A plain English contract development guide has been put together in response to what the inspector-general for defence has proposed. The Defence Inspector-General Group is reviewing practices in elements that were also once part of the clothing section.

As I said in my introductory remarks, I will bring an open mind—and I do bring an open mind—to this issue. There have been significant improvements in the way the Defence Materiel Organisation and the Soldier Support Systems Program Office operate. But I will be having a very close look at this. It is not just about maintaining the confidence of our service men and women in the equipment that they have and receiving the best equipment in a timely manner. It is also about reassuring their families that that is the case, and it is about reassuring the Australian taxpayer that every last dollar they worked damned hard for is efficiently and well administered in every part of Defence. It might be a $17.5 billion portfolio—and we are talking about $22 million a year in this area—but I can assure the House that I am taking a very close personal interest in it and I will be making some further announcements in relation to it shortly.

See this speech in context