Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I responded to him on 11 November. This letter outlined the action which had been taken by the Chief of Army. On 13 November Senator Johnston was briefed by me and my Chief of Staff on the SAS pay issue. A further letter updating Senator Johnston on the issue was sent by me to him on 22 December last year. We had taken the view that we should seek to cooperate with Senator Johnston to make sure that no person was disadvantaged by this process. So we took the view—I took the view and the minister took the view—that what we should seek to do was to engage with Senator Johnston as a matter of trust. We went on the basis of goodwill. The letter of 22 December outlined action taken to freeze all debts with no further debt recovery action to be taken.

Senator Johnston was again briefed, at my direction, on 4 February by senior defence personnel with advisers from my office and the office of the Minister for Defence. At this point Senator Johnston was further informed that a second audit was taking place to cover off all special forces members who may have been affected by the determination. He was also advised again that no debt recovery action was taking place at that time. So we have kept him informed, we have engaged with him and we have made sure he is constantly briefed. We committed to further briefing Senator Johnston on this issue at the completion of the review, which he was told about, which is taking place now and will be completed at the end of April this year. He was told about it on 4 February and he agreed that he would be briefed by us at the end of April after that audit had taken place. So not only did we say in good faith to Senator Johnston, ‘We understand there is an issue,’ but also, ‘We want you to be involved and understand that we appreciate the help you are giving us by giving information to us, and we want to have a dialogue with you over this matter.’ Incidentally, I have had two casual conversations with Senator Johnston in between those meetings—both times, I might say, early in the morning in the gymnasium—and both times I indicated to him that we were further progressing the issue.

During the briefing—and this is symptomatic of what the opposition is on about here—Senator Johnston read from a document that contained information about the circumstances of an individual SAS soldier or soldiers, including one member who apparently, according to Senator Johnston, owed $50,000. We asked Senator Johnston if he would mind deleting all the personal details from that document and providing us with a copy of it so we could investigate it—investigate its authenticity to ensure that it was a result of the DFRT decision. His staff said that, yes, they would make that document available. Have we seen it? No. The document was never made available.

Member for Curtin, you say you have a pay slip which tells us that a soldier received no pay. I invite you to delete all the personal references on that pay slip and make the pay slip available to us right now. Can you please give me a copy of that pay slip? If you are serious about this, you will have no difficulty at all in providing us—the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and me—a copy of that pay slip. Delete all personal references. But I am sure we will get the same answer we got from Senator Johnston. We said to Senator Johnston, ‘Delete all the personal references which relate to this issue of the $50,000 worth of debt and give us the document.’ On both occasions they have refused to do it. What does that tell you about what those opposite are doing here? This is not about trying to get to the bottom of the problem—which, we understand, is a grave problem; it is a grave issue—or about trying to resolve the outstanding issues for the SASR; this is about trying to score cheap political points.

How is it incompetent or inappropriate for the Minister for Defence to instruct, from the very first, that all debt recovery against special forces members cease? Was that the right thing for the minister to do? It was absolutely the right thing for the minister to do. How can it be incompetent for the minister to direct the Chief of Army to fix the issues immediately? Was that incompetent? No, it is precisely what the minister should have done—and, acting properly, he did it. How is it incompetent to ensure that the opposition is kept abreast of the work that is being done to resolve the issue ever since it was raised with us? How is that incompetent? We have done precisely what we should have done. We have engaged with the Chief of Army and the Chief of the Defence Force and said, ‘This problem must be fixed.’ We have told them that we want no more debt recovery. We have said that no person will be out of pocket as a result of this issue. But, instead of taking us at our word and saying, ‘We will sit down around the table when we have a particular instance that needs addressing,’ what have those opposite done? They have used it as a cheap political stunt.

I remember ‘children overboard’. Who else remembers ‘children overboard’ and how they used and abused the Australian Navy? I recall that vividly. The reason I recall it vividly is that at that time, as you will recall, there were a number of photographs which came into the public domain about the children overboard. There were 130 photographs. How do I know that there were 130 of them? I know because I leaked them. They were given to me and I released them. Those photographs demonstrated very clearly that we were being told lies about the Australian Navy and lies about the children overboard—and they were being used and abused as a result. But that was not the only time. Remember when Tampa arrived at Christmas Island? What did they do then? They used and abused the Australian Defence Force for their own base political purposes yet again. Let us be very clear about this: we are concerned and committed to resolving this issue.

See this speech in context