David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to address irregularities and inadequacies in the tendering processes of the Defence Materiel Organisation which has resulted in Australian servicemen and women being provided with substandard and unsafe clothing and essential equipment.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to 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.

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

In introducing my remarks in response to this matter of public importance, I would say—having only recently been appointed as the Minister for Defence in the coalition government, which is a great privilege and responsibility—that throughout my tenure I will view the support given to and the equipment provided for every one of our service men and women as if those service men and women were my son or my daughter, my brother or my sister.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I raise a point of order. I am having difficulty hearing the minister.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot hear the minister? There is probably some chat in your area as well.

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

I am sorry, Graham; by the time I finish, you will probably be saying, ‘Can you turn him down? I don’t want to hear any more.’

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Edwards interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask for the levels to be checked.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to 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.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly I should take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Defence on being appointed to the portfolio. It is indeed a weighty portfolio with a lot of responsibility, given the demands made on our troops in various parts of the world and in various battlegrounds of the world. I am disappointed, however, to hear the minister say that he comes to this issue with an open mind. I do not want the minister to come to this issue with an open mind. What I want him to come to this portfolio with is a determination to ensure that our troops are properly equipped, properly kitted and properly supported, whether they are in Australia or overseas.

It seems to me that some things never change with conservative governments when they send other people’s children away to fight in foreign wars. The Menzies government committed Australian troops to Vietnam, a modern war of that era. They sent young men away who were poorly equipped, with Second World War gear that was more suited to the desert than it was to the jungle environment of Vietnam—boots that fell apart in a matter of weeks, pouches and personal webbing that rotted within months and weapons which were well into obsolescence.

And who can forget the decision by the then Liberal government that any Australian soldier killed in Vietnam would be buried overseas and his body not returned to Australia? When one mother determined that she wanted her son’s body returned to Australia, the Liberal government refused to accept her wishes. When she persevered and gained the support of the media, the government relented and brought the body home. They then waited a few weeks, till after the funeral, until all had quietened down, and they sent this mother the bill for the cost of bringing her son’s body home. Of course it was a bill she never paid.

Issues involving Australian troops deployed overseas have long attracted media interest. I believe that can be a good thing. We saw the deployment of Australian soldiers in 2000 to Afghanistan and shortly afterwards started to read stories in the media about a shortage of equipment and about inappropriate, outdated and obsolete kits. Stories also hit the paper about some of our special forces soldiers doing the rounds of military disposal and camping stores buying equipment in advance of deployment in the knowledge that equipment on issue was simply not up to scratch. I know that to be the truth because I had the opportunity to speak to some of these blokes myself.

Also I was one of a number of members who had the opportunity to visit our blokes based at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. We flew most of the way in a Russian built Ilyushin aircraft, which was piloted by a Latvian crew. We were horrified that this plane was used to transport Australian troops. We raised this issue directly with the then minister, shortly after which we were pleased to be advised that our troops would no longer fly or be transported in that aircraft.

Australian troops are famous for going crook about a range of issues, usually the food. Many a saying has grown up in military circles about army messing standards, most of them inappropriate for the delicate ears of this chamber. But, when diggers stop going crook about the food and start talking to you seriously about their equipment—personal protection gear, weapons, ammunition and personal kit—you know that there is a genuine problem.

I might say that the issue raised with us on many occasions was the question of campaign medals. Campaign medals are an important part of a deployed soldier’s uniform on his or her return home. In my view, it is a national disgrace that our troops, five years after having done the initial job in Afghanistan and fighting with great skill and courage, still await the issuing of their campaign medals. This is an outrageous situation. The same issue was raised with us again when we visited Iraq late last year and spoke to our troops based there.

Does this government and do our ministers not understand the importance to our troops of campaign medals? Have we not yet learnt that recognition delayed to our troops coming home is recognition denied? Promises have been made about these medals since 2004 but, as another Anzac Day looms, it appears that our troops, who have won worldwide acclaim for their exploits, will again march without their campaign medals recognising their service in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think the troops are not going crook about that, Mr Minister, you go and talk to them; I bet you that they will tell you exactly what they feel. The point here is that, if we do not value the worth and the efforts of our troops in various campaigns, we downgrade the worth of the individual soldier.

But the issue here, as I have said, goes well beyond campaign medals. Just as veterans in Vietnam had to contend with equipment designed for use in the desert, our troops in Afghanistan were told at the time to make do with equipment designed for the tropics. That is a fact; there is no doubt about that. When soldiers go into action, they put their faith in many things; but, above all, I think there are three things that a soldier puts his faith in. He may put his faith in God, he will certainly put his faith in his mates and he must be able to put his faith in his kit and equipment. The priority of these things may and does vary according to the circumstances. A soldier knows that he can put his trust in God, and Australian diggers know that, above all, they can put their trust in their mates—because that is the Australian tradition. Australian soldiers too need to know that they can put their trust in their kit. But, in many instances in the recent past, they have simply not been able to do that, unless they have gone out and bought, stolen, borrowed or begged equipment that they know they can trust, rely on and call their own.

My view is that, if a government underresources its diggers, that government undervalues the lives of those diggers. Is there a problem? Are our soldiers being underresourced—particularly our special services blokes, who go out into the sharp end, way beyond areas of immediate support? An article headed ‘Enemy is in Canberra, say Diggers’ was published in the Australian newspaper on Monday, 3 February—a newspaper that I think goes out of its way to support this government. The minister describes this article as, at best, sensational and, in some ways, cruel.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Graham, it was the front-page article; it was a different one.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fair enough; I am not going to argue. But I say to the minister: look, do not just dismiss these sorts of articles. Do not come into this place and say, ‘As the minister, I’m going to keep an open mind.’ Even if this article headed ‘Enemy is in Canberra, say Diggers’ is a different one, let me quote from it. It says:

Blood-filled boots and sodden jackets infested with maggots force thousands of Australian soldiers a year to buy their own military equipment.

Even if it is exaggerated, even if it is only 40, what areas are these people working in? Are they our special forces? Are they the most exposed of our soldiers in the remotest areas, far away from immediate support? Minister, do not come into this place and say, ‘I come to this job with an open mind.’ Minister, I want you to go down to DMO and find out what is going on. I want you to come back to this House and report to us on what is going on. Is there truth or sensation in these articles? Come back and tell us, Minister, because we are taking a very close interest in the welfare of our people deployed overseas—and we want to know from you that they are being properly looked after.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I dearly wish I had an hour to speak on this, but I will do the best I can in the short time I have. A person whom we will call Mr Henley—that is not his name—was given the opportunity to use the Steyr rifle. I was a weapons instructor in the cadets and then in the Army after that for some eight years. I shot a possible in the Earl Roberts shoot for the British Commonwealth in my final year at school, and my brother cleaned up the entire program for clay pigeon shooting, which is not surprising in a family who has lived on Australia’s frontiers for four or five generations. We would pride ourselves on knowing a lot about these things. My father was the Minister for the Army and served in the Second World War, as did some eight of his cousins and my mother’s cousins—or uncles, brothers-in-law—so we have had a lot of exposure to these sorts of situations.

Mr Henley rubbed sweat away from his eyes when he was shooting the Steyr rifle—but it was not sweat; it was blood. He looked up at the range commander, who said, ‘Steyr eye. You realise that the telescopic sight is far too close to the eye.’ A very experienced person, this Mr Henley! I must emphasise to you—and I plead with you, Minister, to listen to me and to the member for Cowan—that it is not that military personnel are deceiving you or that they even want to mislead you; it is that they are brought up to have loyalty, and loyalty is absolutely necessary to them. They have to believe in their officers. They have to believe in their equipment. They have to believe in their armaments. It is very rare for any of them to question any of these things. Grunts might complain about everything, and you might say, ‘But, but—’. But that is not the overall situation from my experience with the Army—and I will come to that in a second. Let me just go back to the rifle.

Of course, I know that when you fire a rifle the stock is there—in this position—and your hand must fit around the trigger, like that. That is a rifle that is the right size and suitable for you. Of course, the butt fell three or four inches short of the bicep, where it should have been, in Mr Henley’s case. The telescopic sight was far too close to the eye.

When he finished shooting, he proceeded to make safe the weapon. He looked in and could see nothing in the chamber, so he said, ‘I can’t see,’ and the range commander said, ‘No, you can’t.’ Mr Henley said, ‘How do I make safe the weapon?’ The range commander said, ‘You’ve got to take the barrel off.’ Mr Henley said, ‘No-one will do that.’ The officer said, ‘Yes, they don’t, but maybe that’s one of the reasons we have had accidents.’ At that stage the Steyr I think had shot three Australian troops and no enemy.

That is not the end of it. Mr Henley then asked, ‘Where do I rest my finger, because there is no trigger guard?’ There are probably not a lot of people these days in this place who do any shooting, but, for a person who has done a lot of it, a trigger guard is absolutely essential; you have to rest your finger somewhere. If you rest it around a pistol grip, it takes you a split second to move it from the pistol grip onto the trigger—and you do not have split seconds in warfare. The range commander said, ‘Where do you think you rest your finger?’ Mr Henley said, ‘Yeah, right. The finger rests on the trigger.’ The reason for this, which was mentioned before by the member for Wakefield, is that a lot of our equipment comes from Europe. The Steyr rifle comes from Europe. When I asked about the finger, I was told that it is a European weapon, an Austrian weapon, and it is made for gloves. You cannot fit gloves into a trigger guard. But a trigger guard is absolutely essential from the point of view of security and safety.

You snap-shoot in warfare. You cannot aim with a telescopic sight. It is great to have a telescopic sight when you have time to aim, but I was trained to understand that warfare is about snap shooting. I was on 24-hour call-up to go to Indonesia and then Vietnam. I was a trained platoon commander and I had done the course to go to Indonesia and to Vietnam. You cannot snap shoot with telescopic sights. There are no sights with which you can snap shoot with this rifle. My information is that the SAS refused to take this weapon to the Gulf War. They took the American Armalite rifle.

Finally, on the issue of rifles, when I signed up—I volunteered; we were at war with Indonesia—and lined up against Indonesia, we had 250,000 SLR rifles. Standing behind them were one million semiautomatic rifles, which we had in this country. This time when we line up, we will have 50,000 of these rifles, which is a substandard battle combat rifle, and there are not one million semiautomatics standing behind them. We have gone from 1.3 million rifles to defend our country to 50,000. As I have said many times in this place, there will be the day when people will curse the name of the people who voted for that to happen in this country.

If the minister believes everything that he is told, then it behoves him to reflect upon this fact: I was at a function and got talking to two blokes about how it is in the Army. They work with the Black Hawks. They did not answer my questions but I pushed them and pushed them, and eventually one of them said, ‘Hardly any of the Black Hawks are serviceable and we’ve had only six hours each on them this year.’ This is a very sophisticated piece of machinery.

I was a state member of parliament then and we had lost government, we were on the nose and we could not get anything into the media. I do not know whether they are excuses; maybe there was something I could have done—I have questioned in my mind a thousand times whether there was anything I could have done—because some two years after that discussion took place, 23 people, I think it was, lost their lives. There were officers there that were telling their superiors that everything was all right. There was no way that any officer had told his superiors about those problems and put it into the system—into the RODUMs that they are talking about here. My experience in the Army is that if you start making RODUMs you can kiss your chances of promotion goodbye and increase your chances of being sent somewhere extremely unpalatable.

I plead with the minister to remember the Black Hawk incident. I also ask him to remember that in the Second World War the people in this place were told that we had adequate abilities to meet the Japanese. The Owen gun was trialled in November 1939 by the Army. It was vastly superior. On a scale of one to 10 it came off at about an eight or nine. The Tommy gun came off at about two. As for the Sten gun, the trials could not be continued because it broke down three times; there were no real trials on the Sten gun.

It was only because this place insisted that eventually the Owen gun was sent up there. So we went up with Tommy guns that did not work in jungle warfare and that weighed in at 40 pounds with 400 rounds of ammunition, versus an Owen gun at 28 pounds. Frank Ford in this place said, ‘I’m overruling you people in the Army’—and these were the experts; Frank Ford knew nothing about weapons. He overruled them and insisted on the Owen gun. In the meantime, Billy Went-worth, who was then out of the Army—I don’t know the circumstances; well, I do know the circumstances, actually, as it is a matter of history—went on a speaking tour, saying, ‘It is an absolute disgrace that our men are up there without any submachine guns that will work in the conditions in which they are fighting.’

Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I say to the minister through you: there are some precision-guided munitions out there but there is not anything like the number that should be there. Automated grenade launchers are not available. There are some there but they are not available. To me, it is a magic weapon.

Many people I speak to—and, of course, I have a lot of Army people in my electorate, which takes in part of Townsville—have insisted that we make available again the .50 cal machine gun. They are simply not there. The Bushmaster—the recce vehicle—has no provision for carrying machine gun weaponry. In the old days the Bren Gun Carrier was the name for what we call an APC or armoured personnel carrier. There is no provision on the Bushmaster for .50 cal machine guns or to carry into combat any of these things that are too heavy for individuals to carry. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to join in this MPI. I am not doing so on the same basis as the member for Cowan or the member for Kennedy or the member for Wakefield, who have all had previous military experience. My reason for joining in the debate is that I have had experience of representing a particular class of persons who work in a particular occupation in a disciplined service. As the member for Dickson would be only too aware, for a large period of my life I have been representing police officers and looking to ensure that they have adequate and proper protection through the equipment they need. I know from first-hand experience what is required in ensuring that the equipment that is supplied to those officers in that style of service meets the demands and rigours of that occupation.

This MPI is about a series of complaints that have been received from military personnel, dealing with operational efficiency and also occupational health and safety based issues. When we are talking about a disciplined service where there is a chain of command, I do not believe we can adequately quarantine these issues, as they apply to one another. I understand what has been said about the RODUM system, and I understand that that is essentially a system to maintain at least a reporting provision in relation to real-time reporting of operational efficiency of equipment.

But what we are concerned about is that, notwithstanding that, we have a situation where military personnel have actually taken upon themselves to set up their own website to log complaints that have been made about equipment by colleagues throughout the ADF. One site was set up by a veteran of Iraq and East Timor, one Dane Simmonds. In that site, Mr Simmonds logged complaints from many soldiers from various areas of the ADF that concerned their clothing and their equipment. As a consequence of the number of complaints that were received and his attempts to process those complaints, he was ordered to shut down that site. That does not sit well when you think that that site almost, to that extent, runs in competition with the military’s RODUM reporting scheme.

I believe that there has to be a proper auditing process for the Defence Materiel Organisation. That organisation runs to a budget of $7.2 billion. We know that the military has only recently been sued for breach of copyright or at least in respect of plagiarism of tender documents. We also know that the ADF’s Inspector-General has recommended that certain charges be raised or disciplinary action taken against two officers of the DMO.

I know my time is very limited. I say to the minister, in his new role, that this is an organisation that, for various reasons—probity and otherwise—requires complete investigation. Apart from the probity issues, it is the responsibility of the Defence Materiel Organisation to provide our troops with the safest and best equipment to suit the purpose at hand.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a contribution to this matter of public importance.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, do you run the House or does the Minister for Health and Ageing run the House?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for New England has the call. The minister will take his place.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the standing orders that suggest that there is time for people to make a contribution on this issue. This is a very important issue; it is about our defence forces. There are a number of issues that have been raised today, and I congratulate the member for Kennedy on his contribution.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Question put.