David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise to discuss this matter—which, indeed, is a matter of public importance—I think it is important that we do look at what the accusations are, the origin of these accusations and some of the claims and facts behind them. I do happen to agree with the member for Cowan that these things should not be just dismissed; they should be investigated so that our troops know that not only the military hierarchy but the government behind it are committed to making sure that they have the best equipment they possibly can have for when we make decisions to put them into harm’s way. I also happen to agree with the member for Cowan that recognition is important and I support his call for making sure that we have timely recognition of people who have served this nation.

In this specific accusation, though, there are two areas. One area is the irregularities and inadequacies that are claimed to exist in the procurement system. I believe the minister has addressed those, so I will confine my remarks to the second area, which is looking at the accusation of substandard and unsafe clothing or essential equipment. Where have these accusations come from? They are media allegations which have been made regarding the troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have been based on a freedom of information request made by the media.

The member for Barton quoted the Australian Defence Association, and I am going to join him in that. The Australian Defence Association, commenting on these specific allegations and not on some of the broader issues, said that they were ‘out of context, inaccurate and sensationalist’. The Australian Defence Association, which the member for Barton quite correctly identified, are not backward in coming forward and being somewhat critical of the government at times when they feel that we are not doing the right thing by the military. I believe they correctly labelled these allegations in the media as being inaccurate and sensationalist.

The member for Cowan said that we should not just dismiss them; we should investigate them. I agree, and I know that the member for Herbert went out when those things were published and talked to the troops in 1st Battalion who live and work inside his electorate to find out from both troops and officers what the facts are, what they really believe about that. The feedback he has got aligns with the conclusion of the Australian Defence Association that these are not accurate claims.

Let us take for example the boots that are claimed to be deficient. Some people are saying that the government are somehow inept because we are using a home-grown product as opposed to buying world’s best. What was FOI-ed? The RODUMs were, and the minister has explained that. In fact, the member for Barton has also talked about that. The RODUMs were FOI-ed, and we see that there was feedback. The minister has mentioned the fact that some 60,000 boots were in circulation. What he did not mention is that the current style of boots—and there have been some 276,000 boots issued since 1999—are about the fifth iteration of that design. What that means is that Defence has a very proactive approach to issuing equipment and then giving troops the opportunity to give feedback as to where there are problems. So those boots have been incrementally developed.

The RODUMs have come in, and since 2004 there have been only 20 reports about blisters. Of the 60,000, as the minister said, there have been only 60-odd reports in the last 18 months and so that is a very high satisfaction rate. Why is it satisfactory? It is satisfactory because the development that the ADF undertakes on the basis of the feedback means we continually improve the product. So the boots the troops are currently using have better shock protection and absorption in the sole, they are lighter and, importantly, there is an ever-increasing size range. There are something like five sizings available now as well as width variations for troops. In fact the ADF will hand-make boots for you if your feet are a funny shape. So the ADF will go to whatever lengths are necessary to make sure that people have the right equipment so that they can go and do their job.

Importantly also, because Defence takes this whole process of trialling equipment very seriously, units such as the 1st Battalion, for example, are at the moment trialling field equipment. They are doing field trials on new equipment, and the whole purpose of that is to take things that have been developed to try to stay at the cutting edge and to give feedback as to where problem areas are so that before a production run is made problems can be ironed out.

The member for Barton talked about flying jacket trials. I have taken part in some of those trials, and I can tell you it is a very robust process, often over at least 12 months, so that you get to wear the kit in a range of environmental conditions and you have adequate opportunity to feed back before you finally get the product at the end of it. So there is a robust system there, and I know from experience that it develops a very good product.

Why do we do some of this stuff in-house rather than just buying commercial, off-the-shelf products? Again let us come back to boots. The requirement for boots in terms of design and outcome for somebody operating in a cold, wet environment such as the traditional NATO environment in Northern Europe, which is where the majority of military equipment is designed for, is radically different to what is required if you are operating in a hot, dry, dusty environment. Although there are many boots that suit colder climates and wet climates, there are not many—in fact there are only two—that are really considered world leaders for desert boots, hot and dry boots. The Australian boot is one and the US Army boot is the other. So in terms of where our troops operate, the solution that we have developed is actually a world leader for our troops. The minister made comments before about the sergeant who said, ‘Well, I’ve tried other people’s things and I wouldn’t wear anyone else’s but our own.’ Where there is a commercial, off-the-shelf solution such as boots for cold, wet weather—and companies make products that are suitable—our Defence Force buys those, because that is the more effective way to use taxpayers’ money and provide the equipment that is required.

One of the perceptions I believe is wrong both in the media and sometimes within Defence itself is that Australia is somehow second rate in the nature of the equipment that it has and that there is always something better out there. The reality is that, because in world terms the ADF is a small defence force, we actually have the ability to upgrade across the ADF quite quickly to make sure that we are keeping up with technology and that our equipment is leading edge.

I had personal experience of this with night vision equipment when, post the accident in 1996 as we were leading up to the 2000 Olympics and we wanted to make sure the night vision equipment we had for our aircrew flying the Black Hawks was world class, we did benchmarking against the States, Europe and the UK and found the very best equipment in a very short time frame and purchased the optimal equipment from around the world. I can tell you that, by 2000, Australia was leading the world in the quality and standard of its equipment and the consistency and the training and support mechanisms behind it. That is something that is common in many areas of the Australian Defence Force. I believe it is time that people recognised that Defence has a very good system of identifying faults and procuring equipment that actually meets the needs.

As to the question of why troops buy kit, again Neil James from the ADA points out that troops have been doing this for years. I remember, certainly going back more than two decades when I first joined the Army, that sometimes there was good reason for that—for example, what they used to call smocks tropological. They were pieces of plastic that did not keep any rain out but it was thought that they did, and so people would often go and buy waterproof kit. In fact, I remember one person who spent hundreds of dollars on a Gortex suit. Whenever he pulled it out it never rained, so we used to try to be with him.

But those days have long gone. In my experience over two decades, when people buy personal equipment now, it is because of personal choice. Very seldom have I seen in recent experience—and in the feedback I have had from serving members—situations where people need to go and buy equipment that is required for operations, unless it is personal choice.

In addressing this matter of public importance, and whilst acknowledging that in acquisition systems there are things that the minister is going to be looking into in terms of the equipment our troops are using, I believe it is important to understand that, while the media is chasing headlines, the ALP’s purported reason for raising this is concern for our troops. I would counsel them to make sure they check the facts, because I believe that, if you check the facts and ask the troops who are out there using the equipment, you will find the equipment is good. Check the context of the documents that are referred to in the media, because then you will understand why the media has brought this up—the fact that it makes good headlines. But we will avoid any accusations of party-political point scoring and, importantly, we will avoid putting additional concern on the families who have the daily pressure and worry about their loved ones serving overseas.

See this speech in context