Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. The stated purpose of this bill is threefold: firstly, to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to incorporate a third universal emblem, the red crystal, along with the existing emblems of the red cross and red crescent; secondly, to amend the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly allow the making of regulations for the provision of medical and dental treatment to a member of the Australian Defence Force, to a member of the family of an Australian Defence Force member and to cadets; and, thirdly, to amend the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to provide that the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap is a prohibited area. Given their disparate nature, I will speak to these three issues individually.

Schedule 1 of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 incorporates the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions, which establishes a third universal and distinctive emblem, called the red crystal, for the Red Cross-Red Crescent movement. Schedule 1 also proposes amending the Criminal Code Act 1995 to ensure that the new Geneva emblem is covered by the existing offences related to the improper use of the emblems of the Geneva conventions.

As most of us are aware, the emblems of the red cross and red crescent have for many years been seen as symbols of protection against the violence and brutality of warfare and the promise of aid in times of disaster and distress. Anyone who has seen the Red Cross-Red Crescent organisation in action knows the good work that they do, and the Australian Red Cross of course is no exception. Whether it be helping out in times of disaster or championing the causes of human rights in our region, the work of the Red Cross is invaluable. It is also worth mentioning that this work is yet more remarkable when you consider that much of it is carried out by volunteers—ordinary Australians making extraordinary contributions to their community, to their country and to the world in which they live.

We have seen this contribution firsthand this week as the Red Cross continues to help thousands of people devastated by the bushfires that have raged across large parts of Victoria. Red Cross staff and volunteers are working at 20 relief centres to support people affected by the fires, including at Whittlesea, north of Melbourne, where many people from the devastated township of Kinglake are currently taking shelter. They are providing meals for firefighters, police and people in the relief centres. First aid volunteers are assisting emergency services personnel and other affected people by treating mainly fire related injuries like minor burns and smoke inhalation. Red Cross personal support volunteers are providing practical assistance to evacuees as well as emotional support, information and referrals to recovery services. Red Cross staff and volunteers are also manning donation and blood bank facilities around the country. I urge all Australians to give in any way they can. Now, as always, the red cross emblem stands out clearly as a symbol of help in hard times.

The symbols of the red cross and red crescent have both served as protective emblems for military and civilian medical services in wartime, and as distinctive signs for national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world. Yet since their adoption these now universally known symbols have also been a source of recurrent controversy and the subject of much debate—debate which has at times hampered their effectiveness as symbols of neutrality.

A recent submission to members of this parliament by the Australian Red Cross Chief Executive Officer, Robert Tickner, goes some way to explain these issues of difficulty and to articulate the need for and value of the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions, which establishes the new red crystal emblem alongside the red cross and red crescent. The red cross and red crescent emblems are legally recognised under international law—most notably the 1949 Geneva conventions and their additional protocols of 1977—and are used around the world to protect medical personnel, equipment and buildings during periods of armed conflict, as well as to identify national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. However, the red cross and red crescent emblems have in some circumstances been wrongly perceived as having particular political, cultural or religious connotations. This has affected the perceived integrity of the emblems and has therefore on occasions lessened the protections the emblems offer to victims and to humanitarian and medical personnel.

The debate which has led to the adoption of the additional protocol III arose out of the need to operate in circumstances or in locations where neither the red cross nor the red crescent emblem is perceived and thus respected as neutral. There have also been a number of countries, such as Israel, which, as a result of not using the red cross or red crescent symbols, have been unable until recently to be admitted as formal members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. To address this problem, an international diplomatic conference adopted the additional protocol III to the Geneva conventions in late 2005, and the third emblem, the red crystal, allowed the movement in mid-2006 to formally recognise and admit the Palestine Red Crescent Society and Magen David Adom, the Israel society, as full members.

Working with the Australian Red Cross, the coalition government, under the Howard administration, played a significant role at the international negotiations to develop the protocol, and on 8 March 2006 Australia signed the protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, protocol III.

Protocol III entered into force internationally on 14 January 2007. On 9 May 2007, protocol III was tabled in parliament with a proposal that Australia take binding treaty action to ratify the protocol. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviewed the protocol and conducted hearings on 18 June 2007. The committee tabled its report to this parliament on 16 August 2007 and recommended that binding treaty action be taken. The bill incorporates the red crystal emblem along with the existing emblems, the red cross and the red crescent, into Australian statute and will conclude a process fully supported and facilitated by the coalition both in government and in opposition. The incorporation of additional protocol III to the Geneva conventions has demonstrated that the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement continues to stand as a neutral and independent organisation capable of putting aside political and religious tensions in its commitment to humanitarian need.

As stated previously by the Minister for Defence, schedule 2 of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 amends section 124 of the Defence Act 1903 to enable the making of regulations to cover the provisions of medical and dental treatment including pharmaceuticals to an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. Currently, the Defence Force regulations contain a provision that recognise the provision of medical and dental treatment to members of the ADF in order that they are healthy for the purpose of discharging their duties, as well as cost recovery in specified circumstances. The amendments to section 124 will enable a more comprehensive regime in the Defence Force regulations, including broadening the regulations to enable the making of regulations to cover the provisions of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an ADF member or a cadet remember or a member of the family of an ADF member. This is not necessarily contentious and the coalition certainly supports the government in addressing any shortfalls in the regulations relating to the provisions of medical treatment to members of the ADF.

In briefings on this matter, the minister’s office has specifically mentioned the treatment of cadets and the treatment of ADF members by civilian contractors as at least two possible shortfalls. However, it must be pointed out that the government have not mentioned in the bill, in the explanatory memorandum, in the minister’s second reading speech or in any brief that he or his staff have provided to either my office or the office of the shadow minister for Defence their very bold election promise to extend the free health coverage provided to ADF members to the families of ADF member’s. A plan has now been reformed and rebadged as the ADF family medical and dental trial. This is, we assume, because they do not wish to draw attention to the fact that they have in every way failed to deliver on this promise. It must be pointed out that such an entitlement, even if provided as only a limited trial to a select few, will indeed require the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to a member of the family of an ADF member. Some explanation of this promise is necessary, given the amendments proposed in schedule 2, as it would seem any planned regulations are likely to be directly related to this provision.

In the lead-up to the election, the Labor Party promised free medical and dental care for ADF families, stating in Labor’s Plan for Defence that:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities.

Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

However, come budget time the government funded the promised entitlements only as a trial, clearly failing to deliver on this extraordinary pre-election commitment. May I remind the House that that elaborate election commitment included the promise of dedicated Defence family healthcare clinics which would be open five days a week and include a doctor, nurse, dentist and dental nurse. The election policy promised that Defence family healthcare clinics would be located at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, for around 4,000 dependent spouses and children and at all Defence facilities in and around Townsville, and at Robertson Barracks in Darwin for around 3650 dependent spouses and children at all seven Defence facilities in and around Darwin. The remaining 10 were to be located in Cairns in the electorate of Leichhardt, RAAF Edinburgh in the electorate of Wakefield, Elizabeth North in the electorate of Wakefield, RAAF Amberley in the electorate of Blair, Jerrabomberra in the electorate of Eden Monaro, Williamtown in the electorate of Newcastle, Shoalhaven in the electorate of Gilmore, Singleton in the electorate of Hunter, East Sale in the electorate of Gippsland and Karratha-Pilbara in the electorate of Kalgoorlie.

Instead of the $33.1 million that they promised, they have allocated only $12.2 million over four years to trial the provisions of basic GP services and limited dental care to families of ADF members in the selected locations of Singleton, Katherine, East Sale, Cairns and Karratha-Pilbara. The budget allocation of $12.2 million over four years falls some $20.9 million short of the election promise, while the amount allocated for 2008-09 is only $2.4 million, with dental care limited to $300 per dependant per annum. Having pledged that initial $33.1 million investment to start these 12 Defence family healthcare clinics with a focus on remote base locations and major regional centres, only five of the rural and remote Defence locations were mentioned, excluding, amongst others, Townsville and Darwin where the commitment to provide clinics was replaced by a plan in which families would have to access the health department’s GP Superclinics in Darwin and Townsville. Similarly, instead of providing the promised Defence healthcare clinics, Defence families in other limited locations are now to source their own doctor and dentist. This can be very hard on a family every time that they are posted to a new base. Given that the regulations likely to be made and/or changed following the amendment of schedule 2 of this bill are those that will allow for the provision of medical and dental health care by the ADF to civilian family of ADF members, there are a number of areas of concern to the coalition regarding this proposed entitlement.

As stated, the bill provides for the making of regulations about medical and dental treatment for a ‘member,’ ‘cadet’ or a ‘member of the family’ of an ADF member. These terms are defined in section 58A of the Defence Act as follows:

‘member’ includes a person who has ceased to be a member, whether by reason of death or otherwise.

‘cadet’ means an officer, instructor or cadet in the Australian Army Cadets, the Australian Navy Cadets or the Australian Air Force Cadets, and includes a person who has ceased to be such an officer, instructor or cadet, whether by reason of death or otherwise.

‘member of the family’ includes:

(a)

in relation to a member—a member of the household of the member and a dependant of the member; or

(b)

in relation to a cadet—a member of the household of the cadet and a dependant of the cadet.

It is important to note that, under the act, the term ‘member of the family’ includes but is not limited to a member of the household and a dependant of the ADF member or cadet. There are some concerns here as to what model will be used to determine the meaning of the terms ‘household’ and ‘dependant’ in the provision of such an entitlement. Thus the extent of medical and dental treatment, if any, available to persons other than members of the ADF and their families is not clear. The terms ‘member of the household of the member’ and ‘a dependant of the member’ are not defined in either the Defence Act or the bill. It is therefore not clear whether the proposed medical and dental treatment could, for instance, be extended to people other than spouses and dependent children who are members of the household of the member. It would seem to hang on the extent of their dependency, and it is not clear whether the member of the household of the ADF member must be totally dependent or whether they need be only partially dependent on the member in order to receive the proposed medical and dental care. Given that the government is still apparently promising to extend free health coverage to all ADF family members, the financial ramifications of such definitions could be considerable.

Another area of concern is the provision of such an entitlement to reservists. Section 4 of the Defence Act 1903 defines a ‘member’ as including any officer, sailor, soldier and airman. It is not clear whether the government, through this bill, intends that reserves and their families are to be included in the class of persons who will have access to the proposed medical and dental treatment. This would, perhaps, seem unlikely, given that in section 4 and elsewhere in the Defence Act—for example, section 58B—a distinction is drawn between the terms ‘member’ and ‘member of the reserves’. Does this mean that reservists and their families will not be covered for medical and dental treatment? And, if they are not to be included, why do families of ADF members get preferential treatment over reserves? Why is free health care offered to non-ADF persons before reservists, many of whom are currently serving their country overseas and have recently been counted amongst those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their life in service to their country? We remember, sadly, the recent death of Private Gregory Sher.

There are also concerns about whether the relevant medical and dental care entitlements are to be contained in planned regulations. The details of the treatment available to ADF members are contained in Defence Instruction (General), issued under the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force. In particular, Defence Instruction (General) PERS 16-1 emphasises that health care for ADF members is based on operational readiness, as well as equity with Medicare, stating:

The Australian Defence Force … requires the medical and dental fitness of its personnel in order that they are able to undertake operational duties. As such, the provision of health care by the Defence Health Service … to members of the ADF is a requirement of service.

It goes on to state, in paragraph 5:

Equity with Medicare under the provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 underpins the basic entitlement to the range of medical services provided to members of the Permanent Forces. Usually the range of, and ease of access to, health care provided to such members will exceed that available through the public health care system because of the requirement to meet and maintain operational readiness. However … the Director-General of the Defence Health Service … will, from time to time, issue policy which may exclude or limit the provision of certain medical or dental treatment on the grounds that such treatment is contra-indicated or unnecessary for operational readiness.

It is not clear whether the nature and extent of the medical and dental treatment provided to family members will be detailed in the proposed regulations or whether it will be left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force or to the individual service chiefs, as is the case currently with the relevant Defence Instruction. It would seem preferable, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that the medical and dental care entitlements are contained in regulations which would be subject to disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, rather than in internal Defence documents such as Defence Instruction. Yet, as I said, there has been no explanation about such detail.

The coalition is not alone in its concerns. Even the Defence Force Welfare Association have expressed serious reservations about the government’s plan. I quote from a recent statement entitled ‘ADF healthcare trial: the hidden tax slug!’ which states:

The medical component of the trial is based on a payment being made to general practitioners who participate in a program to bulk bill eligible dependants for eligible services. Basic dental services, capped at $300 per dependant per year, may be accessed by eligible dependants at any dental practice in Australia.

However as with many ADF ‘benefits’ there is a sting in the tail that Government conveniently neglects to mention: in this case, the benefits associated with the trial will be considered a fringe benefit under the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. Consequently, the benefits will be subject to FBT and the FBT will be paid by Defence. However depending on individual circumstances the ‘grossed-up’ value of the benefits provided during the FBT year may be recorded on a member’s annual payment summary.

We therefore recommend participating members seek financial advice relevant to their individual circumstances before registering for the trial.. Participation in the trial is voluntary and members may elect to participate only in the medical or the dental, or both, and may decide to only register certain members of their family. Participants may also opt out of the trial at any stage, or change registration as required. For example, a child with a Health Card may only require the Dental component of the trial, with the remaining dependants requiring both Medical or Dental.

It is also worth mentioning here that Labor’s election promise specifically acknowledged that ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities. Now that the plan to provide ADF health clinics in these locations has been dumped, how will this trial plan, where people must source their own GP and dentist, help these families?

It is my opinion that the Labor Party has dishonoured the defence community by breaking its promise to provide free medical and dental care and to do so through the creation of dedicated defence health care clinics. Given the little, or no, explanation or articulation from them of the details and parameters of either their initial or current plan to provide free health care to ADF families, they appear to have made this promise either without any comprehension of what it would take to implement it or with no intention to actually deliver on it. If this is the case, is there any worse betrayal? The Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence looked our service men and women in the eye and made them a promise they had no intention of delivering upon, and it would seem they did so only for political gain.

As I have said, the coalition has no reservation in supporting any measure which more efficiently allows for the provision of health care to members of the Australian Defence Force. However, we would be much more comfortable in supporting these particular amendments if the government would provide at least some detail of the proposed regulations relating to the provision of free health care to ADF families.

The issue now is, given the Rudd Labor government is simply handing out cash reimbursements or vouchers for GP and dental visits, why this is limited to a couple of select bases as a trial. It should be spread across the whole of the Defence Force. In fact, today I call on the minister to expand this ‘trial’ to every serving defence family and to stop discriminating. Now that the government is not providing clinics it can be equally hard to get access to a GP or a dentist no matter where you are posted.

Schedules 3 and 4 of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 amend the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to provide that the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap is a prohibited area. These amendments were designed to overcome certain shortfalls in the drafting of the act which were brought to light by both the Northern Territory Criminal Court and the Northern Territory Criminal Court of Appeal in the prosecution of four protesters charged under the act with breaking into the Pine Gap facility after cutting through wire fences in 2005 to gain entry.

The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap contributes directly to the national security of both Australia and the United States by verifying arms control and disarmament agreements and by the monitoring of military developments. Australia also supports the United States in its ballistic missile early warning program through the relay ground station at Pine Gap. This program makes a significant contribution to global security.

The coalition supports these amendments and is well aware of the circumstances which highlighted their need. Section 8 of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 provides that the Minister for Defence may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare an area of land or water to be a prohibited area if it is necessary to do so for the purposes of defence during protests, many of which have been anti-nuclear or anti-USA in nature.

In December 2005 four protestors cut through wire outer fences to access the facility and were subsequently charged with indictable offences under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952—charges carrying a possible custodial sentence of up to seven years. Serious issues and concerns arose during the prosecution of the four protestors when it was contested whether the area on which each of the defendants allegedly committed the offences was in fact a prohibited area. The Crown case argued that there was a valid declaration that the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap was a prohibited area and that the activities of the four defendants in that prohibited area were therefore subject to criminal penalties.

In their defence, the four protesters sought to challenge the Crown case based on the interpretation of section 8 of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952. They argued that the minister’s declaration in 1967 was invalid. Particularly, they sought to establish that in 1967 the Pine Gap facility was not being used for defence purposes. In addition, the defendants also sought to advance a case that the Pine Gap facility was not a prohibited area in 2005 on the basis that in 2005 the Pine Gap facility was primarily used for the purposes of aggression rather than defence and therefore the continuation of the declaration was not necessary for defence purposes.

The trial judge ruled that evidence about these matters was inadmissible and in June 2007 the four were convicted and fined over $3,000 but not given custodial sentences. The trial judge also ruled that the precondition to the exercise of the power to declare an area a prohibited area under section 8 was satisfaction by the minister that the declaration was necessary, rather than the objective fact that the declaration was necessary for defence purposes.

In February 2008 the convictions were overturned on appeal to the Northern Territory Criminal Court of Appeal. In making his decision, Chief Justice Brian Martin stated:

It is appropriate to note that following the ruling by the trial Judge, in the conduct of the trial it appears to have been overlooked that in challenging the validity of the declaration, the defendants were entitled to attack the basis upon which the Minister in 1967 reached his state of satisfaction that the declaration was necessary for defence purposes. If, as an objective fact, the declaration was not necessary for defence purposes, that fact could be used by the defendants to mount an argument that in the absence of a factual basis for the declaration the Minister could not reasonably have been satisfied that the declaration was necessary for defence purposes. This was a way in which the defendants could seek to attack the validity of the declaration under the terms of her Honour’s ruling. However … this basis of relevance appears to have been overlooked.

The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap makes critical, vital contributions to the security interests of both Australia and the United States of America and is an outstanding example of the level of cooperation that has been achieved in Australia’s closest defence relationship. The Defence (Special Undertakings) Act makes it an offence to enter, without government approval, a place used for a special defence undertaking. Such an undertaking is defined as one for the defence of Australia or ‘some other country associated with Australia in resisting or preparing to resist international aggression’. These amendments to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, contained in schedules 3 and 4 of this bill, are intended to overcome the inadequacies in the drafting of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, which were highlighted by both the Northern Territory Criminal Court and the Northern Territory Criminal Court of Appeal in this matter.

The coalition supports these measures unreservedly, However, I wonder if the Labor Party can say the same. Over the years the honourable Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has voiced his opposition to the facility in both song and speech, campaigning vehemently for its closure. It would be interesting to know his thoughts on these amendments, which will, in effect, make it easier to prosecute his fellow protestors. I commend this bill to the House.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow minister for defence science just indicated, the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 deals with three very distinct elements. Really, the only commonality between the three elements to this bill is that they reflect an ongoing commitment by this government to make whatever legislative change is necessary from time to time to give our defence forces all of the support that they need to do their job.

In no particular of order of priority or importance, the first element of the bill, as the shadow minister indicated, seeks to give effect to protocol III, the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions. That protocol modifies the Geneva conventions to add a third distinctive emblem for the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which previously was called the Red Cross Movement. As the shadow minister has outlined, and as I am sure is well known to all members of this House, the red cross and the red crescent have been the two symbols for that movement since about 1929. Protocol III, the third additional protocol, adds a third symbol, namely, the red crystal.

The red cross was adopted almost 150 years ago as a symbol intended to protect those who were providing aid, comfort and medical assistance to people injured or at risk of injury in war, whether an internal war or an international war. The Red Cross was established under that symbol at the Geneva convention of 1864 and now some 185 Red Cross or Red Crescent societies operate around the world including, as the shadow minister indicated and as has been said so many times in the condolence motions this week, the Australian Red Cross, which has been performing extraordinary work in the Victorian bushfires. All of those Red Cross and Red Crescent societies are coordinated by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which is also located in Geneva.

The purpose of the symbols, the distinctive emblems, is largely twofold. Most importantly, it is to serve as a protective symbol in times of armed conflict to provide a protection recognised by armed forces and hopefully militias around the world so that they do not attack or endanger people, buildings, vehicles and any other equipment being used to provide succour, comfort or assistance to people injured or at risk of injury in that conflict. Also, the emblems have an organisational purpose, which is to provide an indication of the belonging by an organisation to the international movement. Usually in that case the emblem is accompanied by a title such as, in our case, the Australian Red Cross. The two symbols, the red cross and the red crescent, are now used in about 190 countries.

As the shadow minister indicated, historically the red cross in particular has caused some problems and some sensitivities because of apparent or perceived Christian connotations. It is absolutely clear that the red cross, when adopted in the 1860s, was adopted with no religious affiliation, but it has been recognised around the world over the decades that there is some scope for connotation, even if there was no affiliation. It is well known that the red cross is a reversal of the Swiss flag, or the Swiss Cross. The Swiss Cross, or the Swiss flag, certainly does have religious or Christian origins. The Swiss Cross was adapted as the national flag in Switzerland in 1840 but, before that, for some 600 or so years, it was the flag of the Schwyz canton, one of the original three cantons that created the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291.

The Swiss Cross, or that flag, was granted to the canton in about 1230 by Emperor Friedrich II, who was one of the successor emperors to Charlemagne in the Holy Roman Empire. It is quite clear that the cross that was added to what was simply a red flag of that canton was a symbol provided by the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire to indicate leadership over the Christian continent of Europe. So there is, in the government’s view, some reason for the connotations that have been ascribed to the red cross over the 150 or so years since its adoption and some reason for the sensitivities that have arisen since then.

After its adoption the red cross very quickly gained wide recognition in times of war, even back then, but only a decade or so later, during the Russian-Turkish war of the 1870s, it became clear that the red cross was going to be an insufficient or inadequate symbol for universal application. The Ottoman Empire, in that war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the 1870s, decided therefore to use the red crescent, taking the view that its soldiers, being Muslim, would not feel comfortable with the red cross. After the intervention of the Red Cross Society, the international Red Cross movement back then, the Russian army agreed to recognise the red crescent as having the same effect for protection purposes as the red cross. That de facto equality between the two symbols continued until it was formally, in a de jure way, enshrined in an amended Geneva convention in 1929.

So too in 1929, the Geneva conventions recognised the red line with sun symbol which was used by Iran from that time in the same way until the revolution in 1980, when the new republic of Iran adopted the red crescent in its place. This has been a problem for a couple of societies, most notably Israel, whose equivalent of the Australian Red Cross, the MDA, has since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 used the red star of David or the red shield of David. As a result, Israel has not been a member of the international movement and, strictly speaking, has not been entitled to the protection of the conventions because that symbol is not enshrined in the convention. It is a position that from any reasonable person’s perspective is obviously untenable and one that has given rise to discussion, as the shadow minister indicated, over many years with a view to trying to adopt a symbol for societies that do not feel comfortable with the red cross or the red crescent.

As the shadow minister indicated, in December 2005 the Swiss government convened a conference of all 192 signatories to the Geneva convention, including our own government, the former coalition government. After a couple of days that conference not unanimously but overwhelmingly decided upon the red crystal, which is now known as the third protocol emblem. There has been lots of support since, including, importantly, the ratification by the state of Israel and a range of other countries. Australia signed the new protocol in 2006, and the number of countries required to sign the protocol ticked over in January 2007 with the result that the protocol entered into force at that time.

Our ratification requires a couple of things. It requires the amendment by this parliament of different pieces of legislation protecting the status of the Red Cross emblems—the red cross, the red crescent and now the red crystal—which is the purpose of the debate tonight. Importantly, it also requires the Australian government to disseminate the protocol, most particularly through military training so that our defence forces serving overseas will recognise the importance of the third emblem in the same way as the ADF has always recognised the importance of the red cross and the red crescent and also to disseminate it in civilian education so that our school students come to recognise that the red crystal has the same effect as the red cross and red crescent around the world.

It is recognised—and was in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties debates—that the red crystal is unlikely to be used in or by Australia. We have a long and proud history of adopting the first of the emblems, the red cross, but it is important that the red crystal be adopted by all Australians, whether serving in the ADF or otherwise, when overseas. This is an important development which brings some greater unity to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and deserves the parliament’s support, and I note the enthusiastic support of the opposition, particularly given that a lot of these developments occurred while the Howard government was still in power.

The second element to this bill took a great deal of the shadow minister’s attention—namely, the addition of regulation-making powers to extend protections to personnel providing defence related medical care. As the shadow minister indicated and is well known by members of this House, the ADF is obliged by the Defence Act to provide medical care to ADF personnel to ensure that those personnel are healthy to discharge their duties as uniformed personnel. But we also know that much of that care is provided by nurses and medics. The Defence Act provides for exemptions from different pieces of state and territory legislation relating to the supply and the prescription of medication, recognising that medical care in a defence context is quite different to the civilian medical care at which the state and territory legislation in question is directed.

This is particularly important so far as it concerns obligations imposed by the legislation on doctors supervising nurses and medics. The exemption in the Defence Act currently only applies to uniformed medical personnel and, as I have learned as I have gone around the different bases in Australia in my capacity as chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, uniformed medical personnel are particularly difficult to obtain and retain in the defence forces. It has been my experience that medical care at many bases in Australia is provided to ADF personnel by contractor medical staff or in some cases APS staff, neither of which categories are covered by the Defence Act exemptions.

The legal advice provided to the government by the different legal agencies of government indicates that it is unclear whether those exemptions apply to those personnel. It is clearly in the interests of a properly functioning ADF that those exemptions be extended, and that is in a nutshell the regulation-making power that is provided by this legislation. The shadow minister spent some time discussing the rollout so far of the groundbreaking election policy commitment made by the Labor Party before the 2007 election to extend free medical care not only to ADF personnel, as currently is the case, but also to their dependants and spouses. This was an extraordinarily popular and well-received election policy and it is very easy to understand why the shadow minister and others on the opposition benches are so sensitive about it—as they did not think of it for the 11½ years during which they occupied the government benches.

The shadow minister appears to have taken the view that after that period of neglect the new government would be able to implement this policy in a matter of days and the fact that we are rolling out trials in a progressive way is not a proper approach to public policy making and service delivery. On this side of the House we disagree with that assessment. Labor made a commitment to progressively extend basic medical and dental care to spouses and children of ADF personnel, and we are well underway in delivering on that commitment. Over the course of the development of ways in which to do that, the government came to the view that there was a better model than the original proposal of building family health clinics for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, as I indicated, it is particularly difficult in regional areas to obtain the sort of medical and dental personnel who are contemplated by that policy. But we also took the view that the trials that are in place using a card system to directly pay GPs an agreed amount when the trial participants see the GP provide those defence families with a much greater sense of choice over the doctor or the dentist that they can go and see. The first stage deals with a range of remote bases, which is where this service is most needed. The second stage deals with three other significant regional bases in Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal, and in total those two trials will see the delivery of this free dental and medical care to some 16,000 spouses and children. This is a policy that we continue to be very proud of and intend to continue to roll out in a progressive but sure way.

The third element of the bill deals with the legal status of the joint facility at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs. As the shadow minister indicated, Pine Gap was set up in the late 1960s as part of a suite of joint facilities that until 1999 included Nurrungar, near Woomera in South Australia, and the North West Cape in Western Australia. Pine Gap remains, and together these facilities were, of a very high strategic value in terms of the Western alliance’s capacity to communicate and gather intelligence around the world, particularly concerning the early detection of ballistic missile launches, especially nuclear ballistic missile launches.

As the shadow minister indicated, this was not a policy without controversy. Firstly, the view was taken by many that the placement of these joint facilities on Australian soil made Australia a nuclear target, particularly a first-strike target. However, were an all-out nuclear war to have broken out during the Cold War it is very clear that Australia would have been a nuclear target with or without the joint facilities in place. The second concern raised by opponents of the joint facilities being on Australian soil was essentially to do with sovereignty issues. The debate raged for many, many years about the degree to which these were joint facilities run jointly by Australian and American forces or whether they were simply US bases on Australian soil. It was an endless debate which really does not require continuation in the context of the debate on this bill. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this bill that very regular protests took place, particularly at Pine Gap but also at Nurrungar before its closure in 1999. The now member for Fadden took part in those protests as a very youthful and perhaps radical individual. I am sure he will expand upon that in his contribution after I am finished. I suspect friends of many members of parliament and perhaps members of parliament themselves took part in those protests.

It is very important to make clear that this bill is not about infringing on the right to protest about Pine Gap or any other aspect of government defence security policy—or any other policy, for that matter. We are not about curtailing that right. What we are about doing is amending the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act, the D(SU) Act, to clarify the security of that joint facility to protect it from unauthorised entry, which is an entirely different proposition to protest. As the shadow minister indicated, this arises from a well-known case where four protesters cut through the wire surrounding the joint facility at Pine Gap and were subsequently charged, with a hearing taking place in 2007. There is no question, factually, that this entry was unauthorised. There is no question that it went beyond protest at the point of unauthorised entry. The point that gives rise to this legislation is that the defendants in that case made the argument before the court that the base was not a prohibited area and was not undertaking defence work. In a belt-and-braces way, the purpose of this bill is to make very clear, from the Australian government’s perspective and from the Australian parliament’s perspective, that the whole of the facility is a prohibited area for the purposes of the D(SU) Act and that the work in the facility is a defence undertaking and is defence work. For that reason I commend that part of the bill to the House.

The government is committed to making sure that the defence forces are given all necessary legislative, executive, capital works and other support to do their incredibly important work. This bill in its three different aspects continues that job and I commend it to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. In doing so, I recognise the members of the defence establishment who are here today, including Michael Simon, who have come to witness the debate. I wish to speak on the duplicity of the government in schedule 2 of the bill, although it would be remiss of me not to remind the member for Port Adelaide that in 1993 I was at the Nurrungar protests as a young lieutenant with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. The Prime Minister at the time, Prime Minister Keating, sent in a company group plus 170 troops to guard the Nurrungar facility against 4,000 demonstrators, including union members. As a union member, member for Port Adelaide, you should be very thankful the unions did not get past the police barricade and come in contact with the members of the 3rd Battalion, because we would have been less than merciful.

It is also interesting that you complain about the coalition under Howard not introducing the measures in schedule 2 with respect to providing medical treatment to defence members. Need I remind you that we had to pay off $96 billion of Labor debt, including $30-plus billion of interest payments from 1996 through to the early 2000s? We put aside $65 billion in the Future Fund to take care of public service liabilities that you neglected. Furthermore, we set aside $20 billion in funds for future infrastructure expenditure and left $18 billion in the 2007-08 budget surplus. We left you $240 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, so do not come in here and lecture about what the coalition may or may not have done in various areas of the economy. If we did not have to spend that quarter of a trillion dollars on the liabilities you left behind, I daresay there would be a range of things we could have done.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Fadden, please remember you are speaking through the chair. The use of the word ‘you’ implies that I have done all these things.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be dreadful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be atrocious. I remind the House that the use of the word ‘you’ is actually not permitted. If you could rephrase future references in your speech, it would be most appreciated.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Through the chair, the former coalition government could have spent that quarter of a trillion dollars on infrastructure and a range of things if the hole left by the previous Labor administration had not been not there. Moving on to schedule 2 of the legislation and focusing on the duplicity of the Labor government, schedule 2 will amend section 124 of the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals to an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member.

As stated the bill provides for the making of regulations about medical and dental treatment for an ADF member, cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. These terms are defined in section 58A of the Defence Act. Yet the Labor government’s 2007 federal election policy on defence promised something very different to what schedule 2 is indeed delivering. It promised free medical and dental care for ADF families. It went on to say ADF families face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities. Speaking as a former military officer, who spent 12 months living on Thursday Island working with the 51st Battalion of the Far North Queensland Regiment, it is difficult to get good medical treatment when you are in the middle of the Torres Strait. Labor policy went on to say that posting to a remote location could mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that most Australians enjoy. No-one can argue with those two statements.

The policy platform then went on to say that a Rudd Labor government would progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children—notable, noteworthy and indeed supportable. The fourth point was that Labor would begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 defence family healthcare clinics with a focus on remote base locations and major regional centres. It is here where the duplicity starts. It is here where the election promise does not even come close to being honoured. It is here where Defence families, where fighting men and women, have been sold short.

It is important not to look at what is said with respect to election promises but to look at what is budgeted in budgets brought down and subsequently what is delivered. The Rudd government’s 2008-09 budget funded the promised entitlements only as a trial, clearly failing to deliver on an election commitment, a commitment to progressively extend free health care. It was not a commitment to try it and see how it goes but to progressively extend it. Instead of the $33.1 million promised there was only $12.2 million over four years—4½ million dollars or four million and a bit dollars per year—to trial the provision of free basic GP services and limited dental care to families of ADF members, initially in the rural and remote communities of Singleton, Katherine, East Sale, Cairns and Karratha/Pilbara. Five sites and $12.2 million are far from $33.1 million and 12 defence establishments.

The amount allocated for 2008-09, the current financial year, is only $2.4 million with dental care limited to only $300 per dependant per annum. Only five of the 10 rural and remote defence locations were mentioned initially, excluding Townsville and Darwin. I am sure the member for Eden-Monaro, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, must be appalled to see defence establishments and defence servicemen so poorly sold out. Rather than defence families attending defence family healthcare clinics, which was the policy commitment of the Rudd government prior to the election, families are to source their own doctor and dentist. This is a little difficult sometimes when you are in the middle of nowhere. On 17 October last year, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel announced, to his credit, that the trial would be extended to include Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal, although I suggest only after a significant backlash from the defence community, but to his credit nonetheless.

ADF families do not currently have access to any form of free health cover as opposed to the militaries of other countries, of which the United States is a good example. Free health care—which includes physio, dental, general practice, other allied health professionals, cosmetic and indeed psychological services—is currently provided as needed or as requested to all full-time ADF personnel only. Apart from the provision of emergency health treatment to civilians and health care provided to an ADF member’s dependants accompanying the member if they are travelling overseas, defence’s health care is aimed at the operational readiness of ADF members. It is important that their health care and dental care be in top-rate condition before we send them to battle.

The relevant regulations allow for the provision of medical and dental treatment to members of the ADF on these grounds. Most of the services are provided in-house. Albury/Wodonga and Puckapunyal have these services provided by a civilian contractor. The value of the contract for Albury/Wodonga is approximately $27 million over four years, servicing perhaps something like 900 people—a cost of $7,500 per person including the provision of GP, physio, dental, specialists et cetera. This is a far cry from what Labor is presenting at a cap of $300 per dental consultation in total.

There is no question and the facts bear witness today that the Labor government have broken a key promise to our defence personnel. It is a key compact with those who do our war fighting on our behalf. They promised to spend $33.1 million over four years on 12 defence family healthcare clinics. They said they would to service men and women, many thousands who were fighting on the frontline overseas, thousands of kilometres away from loved ones, from family, from friends, from home and from all that they knew. They said to those people overseas, ‘We will provide free health care for your families in these 12 locations.’ Now these same people find out that this compact has been broken. The budget delivered a $12.2 million trial in only five locations, albeit three more have been added. This is $20.9 million short of an election promise.

I say to the government, I could understand it if we had left you in an almost quarter of a trillion dollar hole, which in the scheme of things is what the next coalition government will be left with. I could understand it if there were a $96 billion debt, if interest payments were $30 billion or $40 billion by the time it was paid off or if superannuation entitlements of $60 billion had not been catered for—I could probably understand it if you were facing that.

But indeed the Labor government came into office with an economy in first-rate condition, the envy of the world, with banking stability—where only 16 banks have AA rating of which four are our big four banks—in which there is no net Commonwealth debt; in which future superannuation liabilities have been catered for in the Future Fund; in which a surplus of $18 billion was left them in the 2007-08 budget and $20 billion in other infrastructure accounts. In conditions like that, in a budget position the envy of the world, the Labor government cut $20.9 million from the health care of the mums and dads, the boys and the girls and the babies of our fighting men and women. It is unbelievable. Of all the places to make a budget cut in such an impressive fiscal position the Labor government was left by the Howard government, of all the places to make a budget cut, taking $20.9 million from the health care of the most vulnerable, the families of serving men and women in remote localities that do not enjoy the same comforts that we do in the more urban areas, is almost reprehensible.

Instead of extending the free health care to ADF personnel, only a trial has been committed to, for basic GP services and limited dental care in eight locations. RAAF Edinburgh, Elizabeth North, RAAF Amberley and RAAF Williamtown all miss out, as do other establishments. Instead of free health care, the trial will provide only $300 for dental care per dependant. Given the current cost of dental care, this amount simply does not add up. Two hundred and three million dollars per year is spent on defence health—about $4,300 per soldier, sailor or airman. Labor’s plan does not even come close to what we currently spend on our fighting men and women. This is a dishonouring of the defence community; breaking promises to the community is always dishonouring that community. They have made a promise either without comprehending what it would take to implement or—and I cannot believe this would be the case—with no intention of actually delivering. The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence looked our service men and women in the eye and made them a promise they had no intention of delivering on. I refuse to accept that is the case, looking across the chamber at the member for Eden-Monaro. I have faith that he will ensure that the right thing is done by our defence men and women. Having pledged an initial $33.l million investment to start 12 defence family healthcare clinics, with a focus on remote bases and locations, this promise must be fulfilled.

In section 4 of the Defence Act 1903, it defines a ‘member’ as including ‘any officer, sailor, soldier and airman’. It is not clear whether the bill intends that reservists and their families are to be included in the class of people who will have access to the proposed medical and dental treatment. It is perhaps unlikely given that in section 4 and elsewhere in the Defence Act a distinction is drawn between the terms ‘member’ and ‘member of the Reserve’. Again I would see it as unlikely that Labor would exclude our reservists, considering that our deployment to the Solomons is staffed entirely by reserve personnel. Again looking at the member for Eden-Monaro, a member of the government in the Defence portfolio, I can only hope he will ensure that our reservists are not excluded.

The legislation amendments deal with the provision of health care to cadets. However, the extent of health benefits available to cadets has not been made clear by the government. I can only assume that further regulations will provide clarity on the issue of cadets.

The ADF is still experiencing recruitment challenges. Although a range of initiatives has been put in place by the Rudd and indeed the Howard government that has alleviated many areas of this, it is still a problem. It would be disappointing if a roll-back in the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to defence families was allowed to impact defence recruitment.

There is a need for a degree of bipartisanship, when it comes to defence and our national security, across both sides of the chamber. There are only two members of the House who wear operational service medals from service in the military. It behoves us to ensure that our Defence Force is ably supplied, well managed and well equipped, that promises are not broken, that our defence men and women and their families are well taken care of. At this stage that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the member for Eden-Monaro, a distinguished officer, a combat veteran who wears the Active Service Medal, a man of great respect. I look to him to ensure that our men and women are taken care of.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provisions of this bill, the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008, operate in relation to three issues, as we have heard. Two of these issues could be described as housekeeping measures that clean up a discrepancy arising from our federal system and also cure a technical deficiency relating to the security of the Pine Gap facility. The third issue is of greater significance. It reflects the resolution of a longstanding point of contention in the law of armed conflict relating to protective emblems.

On the medical provisions, I have heard the statements by the member for Fadden and the member for Paterson. I accept the genuine concern of the member for Fadden for the men and women of our ADF and their welfare. I certainly do not hold him responsible for the actions or inactions of the previous government as he was also a member of the class of 2007. However, it is the height of hypocrisy for any member of the previous government to complain about action on delivering better health outcomes for defence families as they had 11½ years of opportunity to do something about that and did not. We are acting on that issue. In opposition it is of course difficult to formulate policy without the advice of departments. We are now working through the best solution to that problem through conducting trials, and certainly help is on the way for our ADF families.

The service of the men and women of the ADF is unique in so many ways—one of them is the fact that they are required to be somewhat nomadic. We require our personnel to regularly relocate from one part of this country to another and overseas, having to continually adapt to varying jurisdictions. This creates a tedious round of adjusting many basic administrative aspects of daily life such as drivers licences and car registration but also with respect to fundamental family issues of education and health.

This is something that the Rudd Labor government are fully conscious of, and we are working to smooth out some of these rough edges created by our federal structure. In particular, we are currently working on the national curricula project, which will be greatly appreciated by defence families. One of the measures contained in the bill before the House will cure another of those anomalies in relation to the medical service provided to our personnel within Australia and when overseas. The bill will do this by explicitly enabling the making of regulations to ensure that the medical and dental treatment, including administering pharmaceuticals, provided to an ADF member or member of their family and to cadets is not impeded by variations in state and territory laws. This follows advice from the Australian Government Solicitor that in some jurisdictions ADF, APS and contracted civilian health professionals could run foul of the professional standards in the state or territory in which they are registered, arising from supervising the medical treatment provided by ADF medics. The amendment also enables the provision of health support to ADF members and dependants in certain overseas countries where the range of pharmaceuticals may not be of the standard available in Australia.

The second administrative issue the bill addresses is the provisions dealing with the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952. In a case in June 2007, the act was used for the first time to convict four persons who had broken into the Pine Gap area. Some technical deficiencies were revealed in relation to the validity of declarations relating to the facility, so these amendments will strengthen the Commonwealth’s legal position in dealing with offenders against the act. In particular, the addition of the new section 2A, defining the purposes of the act, will make it clear that the Commonwealth’s power in relation to the facility and its security is based not on the defence power alone but on other elements such as Australia’s obligations with respect to treaties, conventions and international agreements to which it is a party.

In these fraught times it is not just misguided demonstrators that we need to secure this and other key facilities against but, of course, the more deadly threat of terrorists, as recent trials have illustrated. In relation to the demonstrators, though, let me say that, while I fully recognise the right of citizens to demonstrate against the Pine Gap facility, it has long been a puzzle to me why they believe the world would be better off without it. Without doubt, the Pine Gap facility is one of the most positive contributions to peace and security in the world today. I note that it was sometimes said that the facility made Australia a nuclear target. The truth is that this facility makes nuclear war less likely. It provides a key piece of the puzzle in verification concerning nuclear arms and testing treaties and the security of friends and allies around the world through its ballistic missile early-warning information. Without its technical intelligence service, it would be like losing an eye in a world where we need all our senses operating at full capacity all the time. I suggest demonstrators could make a far greater contribution by focusing on the situation in Zimbabwe or Sudan or the brutal, extreme Islamist movements Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban.

Turning to the emblem issue, the other provisions of the bill which deal with the introduction of a new protective emblem in relation to the law of armed conflict deal with, in technical terms, amendments to our Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which made effective in Australian law the four Geneva conventions of 1949 and subsequently the two additional protocols to those conventions introduced in 1977. Following the entry into operation of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which made further adjustments to the Australian regime of the law of armed conflict, principally through changes made necessary by measures associated with the creation of the International Criminal Court, it will also be necessary to amend the Dictionary of the Criminal Code. The amendment to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 brings into force a new protocol III of 2005 to the Geneva conventions of 1949. The purpose of the protocol is to add a new emblem to the protective red cross and red crescent, in the form of a so-called red crystal. This is, in effect, a hollow red square turned on one point on a white background.

The story of how this protocol came to be and of the need for a third emblem is a long and convoluted one and is intimately entwined with the history of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. It began, as with the history of the ICRC itself, with the experience of Henri Dunant, the Swiss businessman who observed the appalling suffering and deprivations of the wounded on the battlefield at Solferino in Italy in 1859. Largely through Dunant’s efforts, the first Geneva convention was created in 1864 for the amelioration of the wounded on the battlefield. In this convention the red cross was established as the sole emblem designated to identify the medical services of armed forces and voluntary relief societies. This was intended to substitute for the various flags and distinctive signs that were in use at the time. The idea was to have something universally understood and recognisable from a distance. It is unknown why the red cross was selected but it appears that it was probably a tribute to Henri Dunant and the tradition of neutrality established over several centuries by Switzerland through reversal of the Swiss national flag. While it was not intended to have religious significance there is no doubt that the emblem bore a close resemblance to the flags and devices used by the medieval crusaders and therefore it was rejected by the Muslim world and, in particular, by the Ottoman Empire of the day. This was understandable, and I have no doubt that consciously or unconsciously the founders of the movement were influenced by their Christian background in selecting the emblem. If it was a reversal of the Swiss flag then there is no doubt that the use of the cross on the Swiss flag is a religious reference. Had a clearly non-religious emblem been selected at this point, the debate and angst of the last 130 years could have been avoided.

In 1876, during the Russo-Turkish War, the Sublime Porte declared its intention to adopt the red crescent on a white background to distinguish their military medical services. In 1906, at the conference to review the 1864 convention, there was an attempt to obtain recognition of the red crescent, and the situation was further complicated by the efforts of Persia to have the red lion and sun, and Siam the red flame, recognised. The conference rejected these efforts but authorised states to formulate reservations to the provisions on the emblem. The Ottomans and Persia took advantage of this, while Siam elected to adopt the red cross. Finally, in the updated and revised convention of 1929, the red crescent and red lion and sun were formally recognised, with the proviso that only emblems already in use at the time, and no new emblems, would be recognised. This situation was later confirmed in the first Geneva convention of 1949, which is the convention for the amelioration of the wounded on the battlefield in force today.

The negotiations on this issue for the 1949 convention were not straightforward—surprisingly! Proposals were put forward at the time for replacing the emblem with a new universal emblem—this originated from the Netherlands—reverting to the sole use of the red cross or admitting the red shield of David for the newly created state of Israel. Unfortunately, the idea of a new emblem was rejected by the Western states in the name of tradition and by certain Muslim states for religious reasons. It was, as a consequence, the last issue of the Israeli proposal which has proven so controversial over the years from 1949 to 2005 and has been at the heart of getting to the solution we now have with respect to the red crystal.

The red star of David, or Magen David Adom, had been in use by Jewish relief societies in Israel/Palestine for nearly 20 years prior to 1949, including by Israeli armed forces during the fighting against invading armies from neighbouring states in 1948. For the Jewish community of Israel, there was the concern shared with the Muslim world over the mutual experience of the crusaders, which was not a good one. There was also the very recent and bitter memory of the failure of the ICRC with respect to the Holocaust, a failure well documented in books such as The Yellow Star and the Red Cross by Marc-Andre Chargueraud and freely acknowledged and regretted by the ICRC.

Clearly, also, the acceptance of the red crescent had established a precedent for the acknowledgement of cultural and religious concerns over the emblem. There was heated debate on this in 1949, with the proposal being defeated by only one vote, and Israel was to try again to have the red star of David recognised during the diplomatic conference of 1974-77, which produced the two additional protocols to the four Geneva conventions of 1949. Once again, however, they were unsuccessful. Since 1949, Israel has therefore relied on its reservation to the 1949 conventions on the emblem, which has only been rejected by two of the parties.

The practical effect of the inability to produce a mechanism accommodating the red star of David was that a number of national voluntary relief societies were not able to be admitted to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as a condition for the recognition of a national society was use of the red cross or red crescent. The societies which were not able to do this included not only the Israeli Magen David Adom but also the Eritrean and Kazakh societies, which wanted to use a double emblem of the red cross and the red crescent, and at one point Zimbabwe and India, which wanted to use a red star and a red swastika respectively. Understandably that might have caused problems. Further complicating matters was the emergence of the Palestinian Authority and its red crescent society, which could not be admitted to the movement without resolving matters with Israel.

Beginning in 1993, the ICRC began a serious effort to find a solution. Over the years between 1993 and 2005 there have been many conferences, some of which I participated in, diplomatic negotiations and impediments which have arisen periodically associated with conflicts in the Middle East. Another phenomenon that gave added impetus to the search for a new emblem was also emerging. In the years from 1993 onwards, we have seen the rise of brutal interstate and ethnic conflict involving a proliferation of non-state actors. We have also seen the rise of Islamic extremists who have eschewed all the accepted boundaries of armed conflict, civil society and the principles underpinning the work of voluntary relief societies. In an unprecedented fashion, the ICRC has endured attacks on its personnel and facilities over these years in places such as Somalia, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally watched the struggles of the organisation in Somalia and Iraq and was privileged to serve on secondment from the Army to the ICRC in Bosnia and Croatia in 1996 as part of the Sarajevo delegation.

It was fast becoming clear that the Red Cross was entering a situation where not only was it not affording protection but it was in fact becoming a target in some situations because of the emblem itself. The ICRC and the UN were facing a similar situation of needing to have some flexibility in the manner in which they operated. In the course of attempting to find an answer to this dilemma the issue of moving to one universal emblem was again canvassed but this could not be achieved. The solution was therefore to adopt the third emblem, which became the vehicle for facilitating additional flexibility within itself. This was the outcome of the diplomatic conference in Switzerland in 2005. The result is that the red crystal can be used on an equal footing with the red cross and red crescent by all military medical personnel and by voluntary relief societies who wish to be part of the movement. It is also open for national societies to incorporate within the red crystal an emblem that is in effective use by a high contracting party and which has been communicated to the other high contracting parties and the ICRC. It is therefore possible for the red star of David and the dual red cross and red crescent to be used in this way, at last enabling the Magen David Adom, Eritrean, Kazakh, and Palestinian Red Crescent Societies to join the movement.

Additionally, it is possible for the military medical personnel of high contracting parties, the UN and the ICRC to use any of the three distinctive emblems where it is believed this may enhance protection. As a heartening symbol of the success achieved during the process leading up to the adoption of protocol III, on 28 November 2005 Dr Noam Yifrach, Chairman of the executive committee of the Magen David Adom, and Mr Younis al-Khatib, President of the Palestine Red Crescent Society, signed in Geneva an agreement on operational arrangements between the societies. Finally, in a powerful and emotional moment at the conclusion of the 29th international conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the ICRC announced the recognition of the two societies, and they were subsequently admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies by acclamation.

There is no doubt that the movement has been strengthened by the resolution of this issue and the wounds of the last several decades of debate can now begin to heal. It is incumbent on the ADF now to put in place a sound familiarisation process to ensure an understanding of the meaning of this reform and that our personnel instinctively recognise the new symbol. The community in general also needs to understand the significance of the symbol, as the red cross has often been misused. We must ensure that the red crystal is not similarly the subject of misuse.

In many ways it is regrettable that the international community was not able to settle on a universal symbol. Over the last two decades, the issue of protective emblems has become more complicated by a proliferation of non-government organisations, NGOs, operating in the field with an absolute rainbow of emblems and logos. There is no doubt that this has complicated the situation for the ICRC. Not all NGOs operate on sound principles, and some have blatantly crossed the line in being fronts for belligerence and terrorist organisations. In conflict zones and countries with low educational levels, many simply do not understand the difference between all the emblems and logos they see around them from time to time. We must therefore work all the harder to promote knowledge of and respect for these three essential protective emblems.

I stated that I was proud to serve on secondment with the ICRC. The organisation performs essential relief work in countless conflict zones and disaster areas around the world, which has only too clearly been made evident again in these last few days. As a member of the ADF, the role I prized above all is that which seeks to track and monitor the whereabouts and wellbeing of prisoners of war and detainees. With this in mind, I call on Hamas to immediately provide access to the ICRC to Gilad Shalit, a soldier of the Israeli defence force, as he continues to endure nearly three years of captivity somewhere in the Gaza Strip.

I worked with all the ability I could muster to facilitate the work of the ICRC in Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, Timor Leste and Iraq. I count as the lowest point of my field experience the failures of the coalition forces to do better with respect to the handling of detainees in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib saga. That experience was a lesson that we must always be on our guard to maintain our standards. It is important for us to work with the ICRC and maintain a regular dialogue. It is not a perfect organisation and has made mistakes along the way, but there is no doubt that if it did not exist we would have to invent it. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we have just heard, the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 is in three parts. I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for a very enlightening history lesson on both the red cross and red crescent and the reason that today, as part of this bill, we are amending the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to incorporate the third additional protocol to the Geneva convention to establish the universally distinctive emblem of the red crystal.

It is very appropriate at this time that our minds are drawn to the history of the Red Cross. As we have seen in the enormous tragedy that has unfolded in Victoria and, to a lesser extent, the devastation in North Queensland, the Red Cross is always to the fore. However, in a world of great diversity and many different cultures, it is singularly important that we have a symbol that will not be wrongly perceived as having a particular religious, cultural or political affiliation and that will guarantee, as much as ever can be guaranteed in the field of battle, the safety of those people who work under it. The emblem will only be used with the consent of the Minister for Defence. It is an emblem which will universally signify people who are coming to the aid of the injured, whether it is in a military conflict, as a result of terrorism or—more commonly these days, it seems—as a result of natural disaster.

The second component of this bill will amend the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to ADF members or cadets or a member of an ADF member’s family. This was an election commitment. We hear at great length from those who sit opposite, even when they sit on this side, the promises that they lay out about what they will do when they gain the Treasury benches: how they will never cut back on defence spending and how they will preserve the rebuilding of the defence forces which the coalition did under the Howard government. Yet again we see with this part of the bill a reneging on an election commitment.

The coalition supports the government in this provision to provide extra support to defence personnel. However, the opposition is concerned that Labor has broken a key election promise to our defence personnel. It promised to spend $33.1 million over four years on 12 defence family healthcare clinics. And yet, as we saw in the budget, all the budget delivered was an amount almost a third of that, some $12.2 million, for a trial, with care provided in only five locations. So early in its term of government, this government has broken an election promise with a $21 million shortfall from its election promise. Five months after the fact, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel—that is, the member for Eden-Monaro, who has just spoken—belatedly included three more locations, adding Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal to the trial, such must have been his embarrassment, as an ex active soldier and someone who I am sure holds deep pride in the ADF, at the reneging of the government in a key area of election policy.

I am sure his embarrassment would have been accentuated by the fact that, at this time, in a world that we now find so challenging, when given an opportunity to show their commitment to the ADF, the Labor Party failed. They failed as they have in the past and as they no doubt will in the future. The message that sends to the ADF personnel who are affected by this cut is that the Labor Party not only do not keep their promises but do not fully, 100 per cent, support the proper provisioning of the members of the ADF and their families. On that point, it has an effect on the morale of the ADF and an effect on the recruitment ability of the ADF, and the government should be held in condemnation for both of those points.

We hear too often from people standing at the dispatch box on that side under this government of their commitment to the ADF and what they will do and how important the personnel in the ADF are. But, given the opportunity, they cannot even keep the most basic of election promises. We are not talking about $21 billion; we are talking about a sum of money that was promised to the personnel in the ADF, a sum of money which could easily have been allocated as it was promised, a sum of money just under $21 million, and yet they are unable to keep that election promise.

The failure to fully deliver this promise means that defence personnel in the RAAF in Edinburgh and Elizabeth North, and at RAAF Base Amberley and RAAF Base Williamtown are to miss out on this service altogether. Instead of extending the free health care currently provided to ADF personnel and their dependent spouses and children, Labor has committed only to a trial of the free provision of basic GP services and limited dental care to the families of the ADF, and only at limited locations.

This is a disgrace. But it underlines a lack of commitment by the Labor Party to the ADF. I can be as sure as I stand here that that lack of commitment is being felt in my electorate at the two Defence Force bases there—the one at Oakey and the other at Cabarlah. Already, as I move around my electorate I am asked—in fact, almost immediately after the election I was asked—whether or not this government would maintain their commitment to fund the ADF in total, and I have to be honest and say that, on the basis of their past experience, I said I would be watching them closely. I did not condemn them straight up—although I should have; my instinct was right—I gave them the benefit of the doubt. That benefit of the doubt has been betrayed. Not only have they failed to deliver on this election promise item but also we now see that the federal government was planning to cut $1 billion from the ADF.

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I ask you if those in government fully understand the message that that sends to those men and women who, in some cases, make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of this country. I wonder if the government understand the message that that sends to those people. It sends a message that demoralises them. It sends a message that these brave men and women will again have to wait for a coalition government to rebuild the defence forces to the level this nation requires.

In my electorate, as I have mentioned, I have two defence installations. The first is at Oakey, which is a premier helicopter training base, which trains men and women to fly helicopters in all sorts of scenarios and situations. I have flown with the ADF in Timor and admired the skill that those men and women displayed in handling these wonderful pieces of equipment. I will watch them as they now embark on the training with the new Tigers, and I look forward to seeing the MRH90s grace the skies around Oakey. But it is important, as we go forward with the defence budget, that those sorts of training facilities are not threatened.

Of greater concern to me, though, is the installation at Cabarlah, known as the signals base—though I am sure they do much more than signalling. That base plays an extraordinarily important role in virtually every peacekeeping operation and theatre of war that Australia is involved in. It also plays a very important role, though, in the economic and community makeup of my electorate. The people who come to that base are highly skilled men and women. They are men and women who come there to take their careers on, to learn extra skills—and also to perform certain tasks that we do not speak of in public. Those tasks are done to fundamentally underwrite the personal security of each and every Australian. Yet this base is under threat from this government and its budget cost-cutting. This base now sits there with an axe over it, with those in it wondering whether or not it will remain intact after the defence white paper.

I took certain action when I was a member of the Howard cabinet to ensure that the base was not considered for closure and, on the change of government, I spoke personally and wrote to the defence minister, asking him to recognise the significance of the Cabarlah barracks, and to secure its future. I have to say that it concerns me greatly that, to date, I have only received a non-committal response and a referral to the process of the white paper. That process is now becoming way overdue. It is a process which does not give any comfort or security to the men and women of the Cabarlah base, nor give any comfort or security to the community that surrounds it.

As I said, the defence personnel, both in the electorate of Groom and nationally, require a government that is prepared to stick to its commitments in relation to its election promises and to the ADF.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it a core promise or a non-core promise?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite should answer that question, and I am happy if he wants to do so, because I understood from the Prime Minister that all his election promises would be carried out, and on that basis I suggest that it is a core promise and on that same basis I suggest that he has broken it.

I think that the government need to seriously consider exactly what message they want to send to the Australian defence forces, to those who are serving overseas, to those young people who are considering service in the ADF, and whether or not they are going to, as a government, provide the level of funding that they need. They should immediately reverse this decision, or enhance this decision, and take it back to the $33 million over four years for the 12 defence family healthcare clinics they promised.

There is a third component to this bill, on which I will only speak briefly. Again I find myself, twice in one speech, acknowledging the comments of the member for Eden-Monaro. It is in relation to the amendments of the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952, to provide that the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area. I, like the previous speaker, certainly agree that people have the right to demonstrate, but this is an important establishment in the defence of Australia and our allies and, whilst demonstrations should take place, they should not take place in a way which interferes with its operation.

This is a bill in three parts, each of which is quite different. In speaking on this bill today I also take the opportunity to wish those in the ADF every success and every safety in their endeavours and again extend the gratitude of my electorate for their efforts. I commend the bill to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. As the House has heard from other speakers, this bill does a number of things which include amending the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to recognise the red crystal as the third emblem of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and also providing that the joint facility at Pine Gap is a prohibited area.

It is impossible to speak about the Red Cross Movement without reiterating the comments that have been made in the last two days by many others in this House about the work of Red Cross volunteers and, indeed, other volunteer movements. The Red Cross, alongside the Country Fire Authority and other volunteer organisations, are working in the bush as we speak here. More than ever, we thank them for their work. In this crucible, in which our resolve is cast, we find our cohesion as a nation and resilience as a people.

These particular amendments incorporate the red crystal into Australia’s statute books as the third emblem of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The crystal will give to groups and societies that have difficulty identifying with the two previously recognised symbols, the red cross and the red crescent, a neutral protective marking to clearly distinguish them from combatants in war zones. It will identify all those operating under it in these ways: it will identify them as working within the Geneva conventions; it will identify them as a group providing relief and care in times of crisis for the most vulnerable; and it will identify them as a group or society blind to race, religion or politics.

One such society is, of course, Magen David Adom—Israel’s national disaster, ambulance and blood bank service. Until 2006, Magen David Adom had been prevented from becoming a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement because it used what would be known in this country as the red star of David as its emblem. I do not want to revisit the long controversy over the admission of Magen David Adom to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and some of the other disputes in recent years because, in 2006, Magen David Adom was admitted as a member of the international movement. But it is the case that the introduction of the additional neutral protection symbol has been under discussion for a number of years—indeed, for far too long. In the very protracted discussion, the red crystal, the emblem that has now been adopted, emerged as the most popular proposal. It is formally referred to as the ‘third protocol emblem’ in additional protocol III, there being a series of protocols to the Geneva conventions under which the use of these emblems is mandated.

It is the happy event that in 2006 Magen David Adom—which is Israel’s national disaster, ambulance and blood bank service, as I mentioned—joined over 100 million volunteers in 186 national societies, all of which are committed to: providing protection and assistance to victims of conflict, visiting detainees, providing medical care to the sick and wounded, and reuniting separated families.

The third symbol has none of the religious connotations surrounding the cross or the crescent. Of course, the red cross is not itself a religious symbol. It is simply an inversion of the Swiss flag and it was intended when introduced and adopted to symbolise the traditional neutrality of that country, that being an appropriate stance for this kind of organisation. It is also the case, however, when gaining the acceptance of sometimes traumatised and poverty stricken people, some of whom have deep suspicions arising out of protracted religious conflict, that there should be no room for misunderstanding. For that reason, Magen David Adom, when operating outside Israel, will use the new symbol, the red crystal, that is being endorsed here as part of Australian law.

As a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Magen David Adom will continue to operate blood banks. It will continue to operate the first aid stations that have been built and maintained all over Israel and the ambulance services that are provided to all critical border kibbutzim. During the most recent conflict, MDA mobilised over 400 ambulances, extended the hours of over 12,000 volunteers and transported injured civilians, both Palestinian and Israeli, to hospitals throughout Israel.

This year alone Magen David Adom’s 700 fully-manned life-saving vehicles attended 1,180 sites hit by missiles within the western Negev, protecting human life regardless of political or religious affiliation. Increasingly, Magen David Adom has been extending its outreach to first-aid programs among the Arab-Israeli population. Its aim is to address the disproportionate number of drownings, electrocutions and serious burns among Israelis of Arab descent.

The Victorian division of Magen David Adom has also been doing its bit for many causes. In Melbourne 700 people attended the function at the Esplanade Hotel on AFL grand final night last year, raising $10,000 for Magen David Adom’s vital work. Similarly, the Caulfield Hebrew Congregation welcomed three of Israel’s finest paramedics to Melbourne at a function at Sukiert Hall. Alon Basker, Ilya Levi and Tom Pasler attended an event co-hosted by the Australasian Jewish Medical Association. The Victorian branch of Magen David Adom has also launched an appeal for those affected by the Victorian bushfires. Co-president of the Victorian division of Magen David Adom Glynis Lipson, who is in the gallery today, said that the response has been so overwhelming that organisers could not get into their driveways or front doors for all the donations. I would like to thank Magen David Adom for their work both in this country and elsewhere in the world—work which is vital, which emphasises our common humanity and which ameliorates human suffering.

The other matter that I would like to mention is the part of the bill which clarifies the definition of a defence undertaking in the context of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap. Under the amendments it will be an offence to enter a facility that is ‘resisting or preparing to resist international aggression’. Proposed subsection 8A as set out in the bill provides that the whole area in the geographic location of the Pine Gap facility is a prohibited area. It also provides that the work conducted at Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking.

These amendments respond to the defences raised by a number of activists who broke into the Pine Gap facility in 2005. The activists sought to rely on a defence that asserted that Pine Gap was not a prohibited area because it was not then being currently used for the defence of the Commonwealth. The assertion was then and would be now an absurd assertion because Pine Gap is an essential piece in our intelligence and counterterrorism network. It makes an important contribution to our alliance with the United States as well as to the deterrence and avoidance of conflict. It is a central part of ANZUS and UKUSA and plays a vital role in the forward defence of Australia.

Similarly absurd is the allegation that was raised by those activists and has been raised since that Australia does not know what is done at Pine Gap. Much is sometimes made of what is in fact a misquotation of Sir John Gorton, former Prime Minister, to the effect that, and this is the way it is usually misquoted: ‘I don’t know what happens at Pine Gap and I don’t care.’ It might be asked, who knows what the Liberal Party were doing in the 1960s?

Today an important underlying principle of the Pine Gap facility is ‘full knowledge and concurrence’—that is, Australia must have full knowledge of and agree to all activities conducted on its soil. The activists concerned who raised this mistaken defence in 2005 were supposedly pacifists. They broke into the facility as a statement of their own political convictions. I would say to members of the House that there was both conceit and naivety in their actions. It is supremely arrogant to think that, entitled to express your politics as you might be, you can in effect recklessly undermine the security of the Australian people by breaking into a defence facility; and it is naive to think that, committed to peace as all of us are, Australia should not pursue interoperability with the United States, as our closest ally.

Pine Gap has always captured the imagination of the Australian people. On 26 January 1967 the daily newspaper of Alice Springs, the Centralian Advocate, ran the front-page headline, ‘Space base may attract flying saucers’. Perhaps, as a peaceful nation with friendly neighbours, we are unused to the kind of military installations that dot the countryside of our allies in Europe and the United States. For some reason or other this facility has always excited not only UFO believers but also conspiracy theorists.

It might be that what has sometimes been said to be the quintessentially Australian defiance of authority has led to the problem of break-ins at Pine Gap. As early as 1967 the daily log kept by the supervisor for the construction of Pine Gap records that he had to lock the cover to the facility’s water tank to prevent what was described as ‘illegal swimming’. One way or another it does need to be made absolutely clear that the facility at Pine Gap is essential to a multilateral approach to global security cooperation. It is vital for intelligence collection and our missile early-warning systems. It allows the Australian government to ensure that arms control and disarmament agreements are being honoured throughout the world and it also allows the Australian government to monitor military developments in areas of the world where our troops may be operating.

We do need to shake off the tendency to regard a ‘prohibited area’ as a challenge and instead let our military do their work. If any Australian citizens have a political problem with a facility such as Pine Gap then it is a problem that ought to be expressed by those citizens peacefully and legally. It might be that those who have a problem with the Pine Gap facility even write to me as a member of the Australian parliament to express their views about it. What does need to be made clear is that it is not a legitimate means of protest to break into this or any other military facility and it is appropriate that the amendments that are here put forward in this bill be adopted by the House. I commend the bill to the House.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before addressing the bill at hand, allow me to express my deepest respect for the men and women of the defence forces of Australia, who are the pride of our nation and the envy of so many others. Their professionalism, their courage and their humility are constants. Regardless of political, economic and social change, our armed services stoically continue their work, risking all so that the rest of us can enjoy peace. I trust that the profligate spenders opposite, whose idea of victory appears to be setting record debt levels, will not get so carried away trying to buy favour with the public through their unstimulating stimulus packages that the larder is left bare for our Defence Force.

The first item in the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008, the formal recognition of the red crystal symbol, in addition to the red cross and the red crescent, would appear long overdue. Given the religious connotations of the existing two symbols, it was inevitable that not all communities would be comfortable with embracing them. Many societies, Australia among them, have populations and consequently armed forces which are extremely diverse in cultural and ethnic terms. Although more than half the world’s people reportedly follow Christian or Islamic faiths, represented respectively by the symbols of the cross and the crescent, billions more do not, many of them tragically in regions currently suffering conflict. Perhaps the red crystal will one day become the dominant symbol for protection of people and property such as hospitals and vehicles, working in accordance with the Geneva conventions which set down rules governing the conduct of war. Regardless, the adoption of the red crystal in addition to the red cross and the red crescent is a positive move and one which would meet no opposition from any reasonable party.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for the second item in this bill, relating to the provision of health care to families of Defence Force personnel. I have already indicated the great esteem in which I hold our service men and women, and I suspect the vast majority of Australians share my sentiment. However, we also feel enormous gratitude to the families of these personnel—families who make enormous sacrifices in supporting their military members in the execution of their duties.

The life of a military family can be exceedingly challenging. Stability is one of the first casualties, with frequent relocations as service personnel take up new postings, often in relatively remote and occasionally very unpleasant settings. Then there is the stress of separation when defence personnel are deployed overseas or even within Australia but away from their families for long periods of time. No-one should have any delusions about the purpose of our military or the risks inherent in any military career. But we must all recognise the impact on families who stay behind as personnel are sent into battle, as they have been and continue to be for the first time in such numbers in a generation. Such are the realities of military life. But spare a thought for those families and the stomach-churning anguish they experience as a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a son or a daughter stands against Australia’s enemies in distant lands and information on their whereabouts and welfare grows scarce. Every ring of the phone and every knock at the door must cause a chill in these homes as family members wonder if this is bad news from the front. Imagine their stress.

For the excellence of their skills and the way in which they exercise them—for that alone—military personnel deserve to know that their families are being taken care of by the nation they so faithfully serve. But when you consider the additional costs to the families themselves, then surely our debt and gratitude grows manyfold. I thought the government also understood this. But it seems that they were merely paying lip-service to the principles involved when they made an election promise to meet the medical and dental needs of our Australian Defence Force personnel’s families. I say ‘paying lip-service’ because, of course, on winning government, the members opposite failed to keep their promise, just as they have failed to keep so many others.

You have lied, and lied to the Australian public on this, and your credibility is shot. Here I will quote from Labor’s plan for defence, your election policy document, as it has been cited in reports. This is signed off on by the now Prime Minister and the now defence minister and the now veterans’ affairs minister. Under the title, ‘Free medical and dental care for ADF families’, you said:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities.

Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

What a fantastic promise—brilliant! Families of those who lay their lives on the line for the sake of national security will be allowed to access the same healthcare services as the rest of us. If I did not know you were full of such empty promises, I might have been hoodwinked into voting for you myself.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I appreciate the passion in the member’s comments, he needs to direct his comments through the chair.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not surprisingly, the problem with this promise was that those opposite would not keep it. A cynic might suggest that they never had any intention of keeping it. By the way, where are all those laptops for the schools? Never mind, we will be here all day and all night if we query every one of the broken promises. Anyway, back to ADF families and that particular broken promise.

As the members opposite are no doubt aware, they did not begin this with a $33.1 million investment, and the government did not start with 12 defence family healthcare clinics. In the current budget the government allocated $12.2 million over four years for this project. Even worse, they set aside $2.4 million for the current financial year. If they could not find the funds to keep their words last year, how are they going to manage to keep it now? Is this why the government wants carte blanche to borrow up to $200 billion? These are questions which require answers from the government, especially following reports which say that they now plan to cut defence spending by up to a billion a year, including the loss or relocation of hundreds of jobs. And news of these cuts came just a few days after the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned against further reductions in defence spending. ‘In the event of a recession, it would make little sense to withdraw the stimulus of defence spending,’ the think tank said, adding that most defence expenditure remained within Australia. Obviously the government does not care about this. The government would rather make cuts to defence to support their wild one-off payment schemes. They would rather remove a known stimulus to the economy in favour of an unproven measure. And far from the great promise of the sort of health care that Australians can enjoy for ADF families and 12 clinics, according to reports at the time you put a cap of $300 on dental care—no pun intended there—and told the families to find their own doctors and dentists.

The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel pitched in that this dramatically scaled-back program would be limited to just five locations. This was just a trial period, the government said. And last October the same minister said that this ‘trial’ would be extended to include Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal, but he also revealed that the government had still not made a start on implementing the program about which they had made such grand promises almost a year earlier when they made lavish, unrealistic commitments in order to get over the line in the election. Last October, adding yet another restriction to the program, the minister said, ‘The initial phase of the trial is set to commence in early 2009 for 2,700 ADF dependants.’ Well it is now early 2009, so where are the lucky 2,700 dependants who are enjoying such largesse? There are 53,000 active service personnel in the ADF, yet only 2,700 are supposedly getting help in the first stages of this project, and we do not even know if that help has yet commenced. Worse still, the minister added, ‘When the trial is expanded in late 2009, it will provide for a total of approximately 16,000 ADF dependants.’ Certainly there are a lot of young, single people in the military, but 53,000 personnel do not have only 16,000 dependants.

Perhaps this reflects the same poor mathematics skills in the government that we have seen in their response to the financial crisis. There appear to be significant holes in this aspect of the bill before us, not least that it fails to specify that the dependants will get free consultations and up to $300 per annum in basic dental care, as promised by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Instead, it makes provisions for regulations to be made to the ADF for medical and dental care of a member, a cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. In the absence of such detail in the bill, presumably we are being asked to pass legislation which then will be subject to interpretation and implementation by the ADF. Why are we getting no details here? Section 58A of the Defence Act defines a ‘member’ as including someone who has actually ceased being an active service member and even includes them if they are no longer an active service member because they are dead. Likewise, a ‘cadet’ includes officers, instructors and cadets in the Australian Army Cadets, again, even if they are no longer active because they have died or for any other reason. The act says that a ‘member of the family’ includes but is not limited to people who are a member of the same household and a dependant of ADF personnel. This applies to both ‘members’ and ‘cadets’. The key phrase here is ‘included but not limited to’. In the absence of detail in the bill, this could open the door to all sorts of possible claims for health care under the program.

Furthermore, section 4 of the Defence Act defines a ‘member’ as including ‘any officer, sailor, soldier and airman’, so it is not clear in this bill whether reservists are also to be included in the provision of health care to dependants. The reservists themselves are already entitled to ADF health care because it is an operational requirement that they be maintained in fitness so they are always ready for duty. So here we have an element of the bill which not only shows up the government for failing to meet a key election promise to tens of thousands of families but also is so full of holes that, if it were a school assignment, it would surely be returned to the student with an instruction to do it again. The men and women of the ADF and their families deserve better than such shoddy conduct from the political leaders who ultimately control their lives. You ought to be ashamed.

If this is indicative of the levels of skill and intelligence on the benches opposite, it is a wonder they could find their own way to their own seats, or perhaps it is simply that they do not care. Maybe that is why they are pressing ahead with defence acquisitions which not only increase the risk to the lives of front-line personnel but jeopardise the nation’s very sovereignty. Let us take the purchase of Joint Strike Fighters—a multibillion dollar plan which would become Australia’s biggest single military order ever. Air combat experts around the world have raised grave concerns about the capability of this aircraft in general and many have reservations specifically about its capacity to meet Australia’s unique needs. Nevertheless, the top bureaucrats at Defence have been dazzled by the showmanship of JSF manufacturer Lockheed Martin’s sales team and appear to have convinced the government it is the right choice for Australia. This is despite the US openly admitting that foreign powers such as Australia will only get a second-rate version of the JSF, with Washington demanding only America get the best model.

The problem is in the insular offices of this city where sales hype seems to have become indistinguishable from reality, and where the talk is of ‘magical’ powers in the JSF—and I am serious, they really do use the word ‘magic’—rather than talk about the practical and very real considerations of defending Australia and Australia’s interests. This ‘magic’ was related by Tom Burbage, Executive Vice President of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, in Avionics magazine. When asked what was ‘magic’ about the JSF, he responded, ‘There is a lot of magic.’ Asked why Australia is not purchasing a better plane—and who would not want the best when it comes to defending our nation—supporters of the JSF will come back with two excuses. First, they will say that the F22—in this case—is too expensive. Well, the difference in price between the JSF and the F22 appears to be narrowing by the day, largely because of skyrocketing estimates of the JSF’s price tag. If the government would stop panicking and throwing money at every movement in the economy, this margin could easily be covered, especially when you consider the next fighter jet acquisition will be expected to see us through to the middle of this century. Secondly, the claim is that the US has banned sales of the F22. That is not quite right. Congress did order that no funds be spent on marketing that aircraft—the so-called Obey amendment. So the ban is technically on trying to sell it, not on the sales transactions themselves. In addition, given our extremely close defence relationship with the US—and that relationship can only be expected to become closer in the future—we should expect the government to make strenuous representations to our key ally that we be given access to the best of military hardware. Why buy mutton when you can buy lamb?

This brings me to the third and final element of the bill before us, which is intended to further safeguard the security of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap. Leftist blowhards—who no doubt vote for members opposite, apparently in the knowledge that they share the same disregard for national security—have long been critical of Pine Gap, without even knowing exactly what work is done there. Few do know, and that is as it should be. Successive governments on both sides have been satisfied that it is worth while, and that it is necessary to maintain tight security. We must accept those assurances. What we do know is that it is a key element in our defence relationship with the US, providing valuable intelligence to both parties, and that both enjoy a strategic advantage through its continued operation. Under the Howard government in 2007, the then defence minister, Brendan Nelson, eloquently explained the reasons for maintaining the Pine Gap joint defence arrangement. He stressed the value of the project to our national security and that Australian personnel had full knowledge of all activities at the facility. He said:

The intelligence collected at Pine Gap meets critical requirements of both our nations, providing us with information on priority intelligence targets such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and military and weapons developments.

As such, Pine Gap must certainly remain a secure facility, including against protestors, who, while free to express their opposition, must also be subject to laws protecting national security installations, whether those installations are joint facilities or solely ADF projects. This is beyond dispute. It is just a shame that the government appears to have so little interest—or is it even an active disinterest?—in defence matters. National security should be a priority—in fact it must be the foremost priority—for any government. Without national security, all the flawed healthcare programs, all the missing laptops for schools and all the pork-barrelling, one-off payments will amount to nought. The members opposite should reflect on this as they continue to talk down markets and plunge Australia deeper into ever-more-pointless debt.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would take this opportunity to remind members to avoid the use of ‘you’ in their speeches as it is a reflection on the chair.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. As a number of speakers have mentioned during the debate, the bill has three purposes, the first being changes to the symbolism that we accept and which is internationally recognised—and this relates to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995—to include the third protocol to the Geneva conventions, which formally recognised the red crystal as a tripartite emblem of the international Red Cross. The red crystal is a very distinctive symbol. It looks more like a diamond to me, but it is called a crystal, and it has been recognised alongside the red cross and the red crescent. On 8 March 2006 Australia signed the third protocol, which came into force on 14 January 2007. The second aspect of the bill relates to changes to the Defence Act 1903 in relation to dealing with pharmaceuticals by Australian Defence Force medical staff. The third deals with changes in relation to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to make certain that the Pine Gap facility is properly protected against unauthorised access—and that relates to a decision made by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of The Queen v Law and others in 2008. There are deficiencies. We can look at the legislation, and it was a very clever argument put by the QC representing the defendants in that case in relation to a very technical aspect of the law. There are legislative deficiencies which were shown up in that case against the four Christian pacifists arising from their actions in 2005.

The first aspect of the bill relates to the red crystal. I think just about any adult in Australia, and even children, would recognise the red cross emblem, and even the red crescent emblem, which is so recognised across the Muslim world. They are universally recognised and can be found in humanitarian and medical crises, in places of war and conflict—on buildings, on unarmed personnel vehicles, on the sleeves of medical staff and in all kinds of places. There is universal agreement that people using these emblems are to be protected because—as so many people have said today—they express our common humanity and care for the sick, the frail, the aged and those who are in need.

The red cross emblem dates back to 1863 internationally. It was recognised following warfare in Italy in 1859. In Australia it dates back to World War I and the first days after the declaration of war. There is some conjecture about what the red cross actually means. It is usually accepted that it is the inverse of the Swiss flag. But it is a recognised symbol and people jealously guard it, as an almost religious icon. That is the problem, because the red cross, for those of the Christian faith, has a connotation. The cross is worn by Christians throughout the world, around their necks, and the cross is held dear in the Christian faith. It has that religious connotation. It is the same with the red crescent in the Muslim world. The red crescent was first recognised during military conflict between Russia and Turkey in the 1870s, but it was officially recognised in 1929 and adopted by Islamic nations worldwide.

The red crystal is really the compromise. Ian Piper of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has said, regarding the red crystal: ‘It was not an easy birth.’ That is right. Achieving consensus was a very difficult process—long and laborious. Finally the third protocol was achieved, but only by a majority, on 8 December 2005. The decision to add the red crescent in 1929 did not prove to be the final chapter. As Ian Piper said, it did not prove to be definitive. Using the symbol of the Islamic world, the crescent, and the symbol of the Christian world, the cross, did have connotations, particularly in places where animism or Judaism were prevalent.

We recognise that there is a dominant religious belief in our country, as there is in many Middle Eastern countries. Even though we are a multicultural and pluralistic society, there is a recognition throughout our country of our Christian heritage. It is reflected in the great work that the churches do. As the Prime Minister eloquently put it today, we see at this particular moment the great work that the churches do in times of crisis and difficulty. We are seeing it in Victoria and in Queensland—along with the work of the Red Cross, of course.

Coming up with a symbol which is different was very important. Israel’s own relief society, Magen David Adom, is a really wonderful organisation, which serves the same purpose as the Red Cross in Australia, but the red star of David has some really significant connotations for those in the Muslim world. Even though the red star was adopted in the 1930s, before the birth of the state of Israel, it is almost understandable that the Islamic world would have some problems with it.

So the red crystal is a compromise achieved after decades of controversy. Even after the Palestinian red crescent and the Israeli red star of David were recognised internationally in 2006, that really was not the end of it, and a neutral symbol was important to achieve. As I said, only two-thirds of the 192 signatories to the Geneva conventions supported the red crystal in December 2005. It is possible now for countries in conflicts in Africa where Christianity and Islam are not prevalent to use that symbol as well. I think there will be a universal recognition of the red crystal not only across Africa but also in countries elsewhere.

I want to take this time to applaud the Red Cross for their wonderful work. When I was a boy living in Ipswich, my parents’ house was eight foot underneath the water in 1974. We lost almost everything. The Army were terrific in those days in Ipswich. South-East Queensland was devastated by Cyclone Wanda. As it came in from the north, a lot of Brisbane and Ipswich were under flood. Those who lived through that time will remember with a great deal of appreciation not just the work of the Army—who saved what little remained of my parents’ furniture—but also the work done by the Red Cross, who came round with such tremendous compassion to care for the people in my area. I will always be thankful personally to the Red Cross for what they did.

I want to pay tribute to what the Red Cross are doing at the moment, particularly in Victoria. According to the website, as at 3 pm on 10 February, they had raised, in the Victorian bushfire appeal, $25.7 million from over 139,000 website and phone donations, with the federal and state governments additionally pledging sums of money. And the donations keep pouring in as the Australian people open their hearts.

The Red Cross, which is the subject of this bill, along with the red crystal, has done tremendous work in this country. I urge all Australians, particularly in my electorate of Blair, to donate to the Victorian bushfire appeal as well as to the work done by the Red Cross in North Queensland. I come from South-East Queensland, but we feel it, because Queenslanders across our state are prone to experiencing floods. So the work done by the Red Cross is highly valued, as is the work done by the Salvos, Anglicare and a whole host of other community organisations which show great humanitarian spirit. We thank them for the wonderful work that they do in our community.

It is not the time to make highly political speeches. I feel inclined to do so in responding to what the member for Tangney had to say, but I will let it pass through to the keeper, as they say in cricket, and deal with the second aspect of the bill. The member for Tangney made some quite amazing statements in relation to the second aspect of the bill. In the provision of medical and dental care for defence families, the Rudd government has not only done what it announced in the budget but also gone beyond that in terms of the pilot programs for the health and welfare of defence families. That is more than was done by the coalition during their nearly 12 years in office. The second aspect of this bill will amend section 124 of the Defence Act 1903, ensuring regulations can be made to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an Australian Defence Force member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. Currently the regulations relate only to members of the ADF to ensure their health for the purpose of discharging their military duties and relating to cost recovery.

I want to praise the military personnel of Blair in Queensland. We have the biggest military base in the country at RAAF Amberley. I was privileged last year to serve in the ADF parliamentary program and to experience first hand the wonderful competency, effectiveness and commitment of the people of the ADF, particularly at the RAAF base at Amberley. This government is pouring $1.1 billion into the expansion of that base, and there will be a greater need to provide medical treatment not just for the Defence personnel serving there but also for their families.

About 80,000 people cross state borders each year to live in other areas, and getting access to GPs and dentists is a very difficult process. I have talked to many defence personnel in my area and this is an ongoing problem. We have a shortage of doctors in my area. We have one GP for 1,609 people across the Ipswich and West Moreton area. The Rudd Labor government is making a big effort to increase the number of GP training places and is making great strides to ensure that we have more allied health professionals and nursing staff in my area. I applaud the commitment to a GP Superclinic in my area, which the Minister for Health and Ageing made when she was the shadow minister. I know that a number of stakeholders are interested and I know that a number of military personnel and their families will avail themselves of those services in my area.

The third aspect of this bill relates to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to include specific provisions for the joint facility at Pine Gap. In the 1960s Pine Gap, which is located about 20 kilometres from Alice Springs, was established. It plays an important role in the security of our nation and of our allies. Part of the Labor Party’s platform is its commitment to Pine Gap. We say in chapter 14 of our national platform—a platform that I have voted for on a number of occasions as a national conference delegate—that we believe the Pine Gap joint facility makes an important contribution to our alliance with our most important ally, the United States of America. We require that this facility continue to be managed and operated on a joint basis, as it is, and only with the Australian government’s full knowledge of and concurrence with the facility’s activities. We have said that we will ensure the operations of the joint facility are consistent with our national security, disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. It is our constitutional requirement that the Australian government provide not just for the welfare of our people but for their security, and that we are doing. Our national platform says that Labor requires the facility at Pine Gap to continue to be managed and operated as a joint Australian-US facility within the full knowledge and concurrence arrangements to ensure the protection of Australian sovereignty.

There are three aspects to our national security that we hold dear in the Labor Party and in the Rudd Labor government. They are, firstly, our alliance with the United States of America, which the Curtin Labor government turned to in the darkest days of World War II, a full 10 years before the ANZUS treaty was signed by the conservative government subsequent to the Chifley Labor government. The second aspect is our constructive engagement with Asia, and we have been taking great strides to improve our relationship there. The Rudd Labor government has a good relationship with many Asian countries—historically, Labor governments have. The third aspect of our national security is our membership of the United Nations. We strongly believe that the United Nations plays a vital role in our national security. We are a middle power and we must play our part in relieving poverty and helping other countries in our region in a quasi good Samaritan way. But we must also play a constructive role in terms of national and international security.

This particular legislative amendment arises out of a particular criminal case concerning a number of self-styled Christian pacifists who sought to advance the proposition that the Pine Gap facility was not a prohibited area on the basis that it was primarily used for the purposes of aggression rather than defence. Therefore, the continuation of the ministerial declaration was not necessary for defence purposes. I really cannot understand how they can argue that. The judge, at first instance, ruled the evidence concerning that was inadmissible. But, on appeal, their very clever counsel managed to convince the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal that they were deprived of a possible defence in the circumstances and Law and others had their convictions overturned in February 2008.

We believe that, in our kind of democracy, it is appropriate for people to protest. They are entitled to turn out on election day and overturn governments—replace them. We believe that they are entitled to write letters to the editor, that they are entitled to protest on the streets lawfully and to engage in all manner of civil disobedience, if I can put it like that. But to threaten the security of this country, to engage in illegal protests, simply on the basis that they are anti the United States, anti nuclear or have green, left-style credentials and want to protest like that is simply unacceptable to the average Australian. It is certainly unacceptable to my electors and unacceptable to the Rudd Labor government. We need to protect Pine Gap. As the Minister for Defence said in his second reading speech, ‘Pine Gap has the function of collecting intelligence which is sensitive.’ In relation to what goes on at Pine Gap, he said that it:

… could threaten their effectiveness and thereby diminish their contribution to national security. It is therefore important that the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is protected with effective legislation to deter unauthorised access to the facility.

The amendments in this particular bill will ensure that Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking and prohibited area for the purposes of the act. So the very clever argument put by counsel for the defendants in the Queen v Law & Ors would be unsuccessful. This bill serves a very good purpose for the protection and security of our country. It is a great initiative of the Rudd Labor government in terms of the security of our country, and I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former member of the Australian Regular Army and a serviceman for 15 years, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the detail of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. Most of my comments will be on the schedule 2 provisions. I speak in support of the view that the government’s election commitment, as embodied within this bill, to provide free medical and dental care to ADF families should be examined in detail by a committee.

This bill will have the effect of amending section 124 of the Defence Act 1903, allowing regulations that will allow for the provision of medical, dental and pharmaceutical support to family members of an ADF member. That sounds fine, and I am sure it sounded great to those RAAF families at Tindal, those Navy families at Cerberus and maybe even those Army families out in Oakey and Palmerston, near Darwin. Having never been posted to any of those locations, I would not be sure of the number of GPs which families can access, but it is easy to accept that seeing a doctor or a dentist in those locations is far more challenging than it is in our capital cities or, for that matter, the remote centres within this country. The com-mitment made by Labor is clearly stated in its election policy, and I quote:

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

That seems clear enough. Over a period of time, every dependent spouse and child will get free health care—and I emphasise ‘every one of them’ will get free health care. I will move on to the next sentence of that policy:

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

Again, that is very clear. The first clinics will be established, using $33.1 million, and will be across remote bases and even into major regional centres. Do you know what I, as a former Army officer, liked about this policy? The announced policy would lighten the financial burden on defence families in these non-capital city postings. You have to remember that it is far easier for a spouse to find employment in Brisbane than in Oakey, in Darwin rather than in Katherine, and in Sydney rather than Singleton. Paying for medical and dental treatment with just one income means a higher burden, and that is directly resulting from one’s service to this country. Local, non-defence people in these remote bases, locations and even regional centres would also benefit from a reduced level of competition for the available GP appointments. To my way of thinking, this would be good for both defence families and non-defence families in these sorts of areas.

In fact, my friends who still serve in uniform would benefit and, at the start of 2008, I looked forward to the allocation of $33.1 million to establish these 12 defence family healthcare clinics. I wanted to see that money and I wanted to know which bases and places would be supported under this 12-clinic plan. I also hoped to see further plans of when my friends in capital cities would begin to benefit from the promise of ‘progressively extended’ free health care.

This bill, like so very many before it, is another example of where a policy promised and possibly voted for does not measure up with the detail in the bill placed before this House. I do not know what the reason is behind this significant shortfall. Is it too expensive for the government to do exactly as it said it would or is it just about show and image? Is it too hard for the government to achieve what it said it would? Has the Department of Defence maybe said that it was a bad idea or that it could not be done? I do not know. It probably does not even matter, but what matters is getting a promised policy implemented: $33.1 million to roll out 12 clinics. To me, that sounds like a black-and-white commitment. It is the minimum requirement, but I will take this opportunity to remind the government what defence families heard when it said ‘free health care’.

There may be a lot of hiding by this Rudd government behind fine-print statements, such as $300-worth of treatment but, when you say ‘free health care’ to a defence family, they immediately think of the same level of health care that their ADF member gets. So is the government ready for flu shots and the full range of inoculations for every member of the family? And what about when Warrant Officer Smith’s son needs physio after a football injury at Lavarack Barracks? What about dental care such as braces or fillings? What about all of those things? Free health care in the ADF is a very comprehensive concept and defence families are not ignorant or stupid people. I wonder whether the government has finally realised that what looked good in a media release and clearly received no scrutiny from an adoring media fan club may be unravelling just a little.

I will come back to three colossal disconnects: what was said, what was heard and what will be delivered. To emphasise the scale of the shortfall, I refer to the Albury-Wodonga contract for health care to serving ADF members. It is my understanding that the contract is worth $27 million over four years, averaging out for the 900 personnel to around $7,500 each over that time. It would seem that even if $33.1 million were provided for free health care that amount would not even look after the families of ADF members of the defence facilities around Albury and Wodonga.

I would invite government members to do as we have done on this side: think of that defence base in or near your electorate, think about the married quarters and the private rentals leased by ADF families, think about the partner and the two or three children that are so common in ADF families and then multiply that number by $7,500 over four years, and you start to see the figures that will provide a meaningful amount for what defence families expect from this policy.

In looking into this bill, I would also like to raise the circumstances of reserve soldiers. Within Perth we have most elements of the headquarters and units of the 13th Brigade. Not far from the electorate of Cowan—in Joondalup, in the electorate of Moore—is D Company of the 16th Battalion, Royal Western Australian Regiment. I know that 16th Battalion has deployed soldiers to the Solomon Islands as part of the company group. For six months they are serving as full-time servicemen. With regard to this bill, it would appear that the families of reservists will not be able to access this health care, but it should be clarified that those who serve on full-time service should have their families looked after. I raise that matter on behalf of the soldiers posted to the 13th Brigade. I also take this opportunity to make mention of the regard that I have—and, we hope, that all members of this place have—for the reservists within the three services.

In Perth, the 13th Brigade consists of the brigade headquarters, the 16th, the 11th/28th Battalions of Light Infantry, the 13th Combat Services Support Battalion, the famous A Squadron of the 10th Light Horse Regiment, the 7th Field Battery of Artillery, the 13th Field Squadron of Engineers and 109 Signals Squadron. Within the formation, and particularly in its units, are reservists, many of whom have served over many years, giving up their holidays and weekends to fulfil their passion—a passion for service of this country in uniform. It is hard to believe that these men and women have time in their lives for anything else apart from their normal jobs and their service commitments as reservists. I pay tribute to their dedicated service to this country, and I believe it is not too much to ask that, when they serve overseas, their families be included in the scope of the policy that the government has put forward but that is not reflected in what is before the House.

Before returning to the bill in detail, I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Major John Caporn, a long-serving member of the reserve and the 13th Brigade. I understand that in 2008 he celebrated 40 years of service—outstanding service. I know that not just the reservists but the whole Army is rightly proud of such an example of dedication.

I note that the bill also deals with the provision of health care to cadets, although this point is in need of further clarification. I can make the assumption that we are talking about the cadets of the three services as opposed to the staff cadets of Duntroon or the officer cadets of the Australian Defence Force Academy. The clarification of which I speak is that, while cadets are participating in camps sponsored on ADF bases, health care would be provided similar to that provided with the continuous service undertaken by reservists on annual camps. However, does health care get provided to officers or instructors of cadets or their families under these sorts of circumstances? That is the question.

Of course, the minister would be aware that most defence families have placed their private health insurance needs in the hands of the health insurance companies Defence Health or Navy Health. Will the families still need to maintain their health cover? How will this work under the policy that the government has put forward but that, again, is not fully reflected in this bill? Similarly, can we assume that defence families will not have to pay a Medicare contribution?

There remain a lot of questions that need to be answered about how this policy and, in fact, this bill will deliver on the expectations created by the government. I believe that this bill—this policy—will provide great problems for the government. The term ‘free health care’ carries with it the expectation of an equivalent standard of care to that provided to ADF members. I cannot see anything like that in this legislation, yet the policy said free health care, beginning with 12 clinics. I cannot even see that. The question remains: when will we see this government’s stated policy enacted in full and in accordance with the expectations of defence families—those expectations so clearly set by the Labor Party during the election campaign?

I have dealt with the changes put forward by the government for the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 and its regulations. I will now turn to the proposed amendments for the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995, being amendments put forward to incorporate a third universal emblem, with the red crystal to join the red cross and the red crescent.

If you examine the history of symbols of protection, you would be aware that, from the time the red cross was officially approved in 1863 in Geneva—the red crescent began being used around 1877 and was approved in 1929—a number of different symbols have been put forward. Generally, and despite differing religious faiths, most nations have adopted either the cross or the crescent. These symbols are authorised for use for facilities for the care of injured and sick armed forces members; for use by armed forces medical personnel and equipment; for use by military chaplains; and for use by international Red Cross and Red Crescent movements such as the International Committee of the Red Cross—ICRC—the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies—IFRC—and the 185 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.

The need for the red crystal has been generated over a number of years and addresses the needs of nations such as Israel that have not been able to adopt either of the two previously recognised symbols, which have perceived residual religious connotations. The need for the legislative changes embodied in this bill before the House originated with the signing on 8 March 2006 of the additional protocol to the Geneva convention of 12 August 1949.

In conclusion, we embrace the need to make the amendments to recognise the red crystal symbol. With regard to the amendments that impact on looking after Defence families, I reiterate that great expectations have been built by the Labor Party, now this federal government. What the government said and what Defence families heard is vastly different to what has been presented to this House. I would suggest to the government that they stop playing around in this area. This is not a matter of semantics. This is a matter of raised expectations that are not being delivered. I suggest to the government that they reflect on what they are doing and get on with delivering exactly what was promised.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008, which is a bill that will, in three parts, amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Defence Act 1903 and, finally, the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952.

The first part of the legislative package which is contained in this bill puts into legislative effect the protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem for the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, otherwise known as protocol III. Australia signed up to protocol III on 8 March 2006 and it entered international force on 14 January 2007. Protocol III was placed before this parliament on 9 May 2007 and the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties considered it and reported on it on 16 August 2007, recommending the adoption of protocol III, leading to the bill that we have before the House today which gives legislative effect to protocol III.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is a movement that we are all aware of which seeks to protect human life and health and to alleviate human suffering. It does so without discrimination based on nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. One of the issues, however, in stating that non-discriminatory basis of the assistance which is provided by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is that the symbols—namely, a cross and a crescent—are perceived by many to have religious overtones. The symbols are, of course, very important in marking hospitals and facilities in which activities are undertaken in accordance with the Geneva conventions and which are undertaken by this international movement.

The situation is that in Israel, for example, Magen David Adom, the national emergency, medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank agency of Israel, has had difficulties in becoming a part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement because it adopts the use of a different symbol, namely, the red shield of David. So there is a need for this international movement to have a different symbol, one which has no religious connotations at all, so that organisations such as the MDA, which have precisely the same kinds of humanitarian aims and objectives, can become a part of this international movement. With that in mind, a different symbol has been added to the list of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, namely, the red crystal, a symbol which has no religious connotations at all. Indeed, if you go to the website of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, you will see that they have now, in accordance with protocol III, placed this third emblem on their website, namely, the red crystal. What this legislation does is protect the red crystal in precisely the same way as our law currently protects the symbol of the red cross and the red crescent, including providing for offences related to the misuse or inappropriate use of the red crystal, such offences also applying currently to the misuse or inappropriate use of the red cross or the red crescent.

Talking about this legislation does afford the opportunity to briefly reflect upon the work of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, particularly at this moment in time. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement was founded by Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman who, when visiting the emperor of France, Napoleon III, in 1859, happened upon him at the Battle of Solferino—a battle between France and Austria. The experience of witnessing it so moved him that he wrote a book entitled A Memory of Solferino, which was published in 1862. That became the inspiration for the establishment of committees which ultimately became the international Red Cross, and they were established by Henry Dunant. Those committees were devoted to providing humanitarian assistance to those affected by war.

Henry Dunant had an up-and-down life after that, but he was accorded a very rare honour by being the first recipient—a joint recipient, but the very first recipient—of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1901 for his work in establishing the International Red Cross Movement. Since then, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has been one of the most important international humanitarian movements that we have, providing assistance to those affected by war but also now providing assistance to those who have been affected by natural disasters. In Australia, the Australian Red Cross is the organisation in Australia which forms part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It was founded nine days after the commencement of the First World War by Lady Helen Munro-Ferguson, who was the wife of the then Governor-General.

The Australian Red Cross has been very active in both world wars and in a range of natural disasters which have affected this country—most notably, of course, the disaster which has so affected this country in the last week, the Victorian bushfires. Indeed, all of us are aware of how important their work is, with the wonderful relief efforts that they have undertaken in the Victorian bushfires. I think all of us are particularly aware of the Red Cross now. Many of us will have dialled their number and many of us will have visited their website in order to make a donation as they are coordinating the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. For the record, people can visit that website at www.redcross.org.au.

The first part of the legislative package is an important element in increasing the breadth of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement so that this non-religious symbol of the red crystal can be used by those organisations which seek to use it. The second part of the legislative package relates to putting in place the legislative underpinning of a commitment made in the May budget last year, and this involves an amendment to the Defence Act 1903. The commitment that was made in the May budget was of $12.2 million towards a trial for providing GP facilities and certain dental care facilities to the families of ADF personnel at Singleton, Katherine, East Sale, Cairns and Karratha.

When ADF personnel are engaged in remote areas, moving from what has previously been their home is often a sacrifice for their families. One of the difficulties that is faced is obtaining medical assistance and medical care, and so a policy was taken to the last election to provide for that. What is in the budget of last year is a trial in relation to those five sites, but it is ultimately with a view to establishing this program for the families of all ADF personnel who are currently in receipt of free health care. This amendment to the Defence Act will provide for the regulations which will allow this commitment to occur.

The final part of this legislative package is an amendment to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 which will provide for the better safety of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap. In May 2007 a protest occurred at Pine Gap. There have been numerous protests over the years but the protest at Pine Gap in May 2007 resulted in a number of protesters unlawfully entering the grounds in an act of trespass. Those protesters were prosecuted but, in the course of the proceedings for those prosecutions, queries were raised about the legislative ability of the act to provide the basis for a successful prosecution. So this bill seeks to amend the act to make it clear that the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act will be a proper basis for the prosecution of a person unlawfully entering the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap. It does that by expanding the constitutional basis of the act. This is important protection for the base.

Pine Gap is a facility that was built in 1967. Its activities are confidential but in broad terms they involve the collection of intelligence by technical means as well as providing ballistic missile early warning information. It is a joint facility between the American and the Australian governments and, whilst its activities are confidential, full knowledge and concurrence in all the activities which occur at Pine Gap on the part of those Australians who are working at Pine Gap as well as the Australian government is the basis upon which activities are undertaken. That is a very important principle of operation at Pine Gap because it establishes the sovereignty of our country in that facility, something that has often been questioned by those protesting about the facility.

The Pine Gap facility contributes greatly to global peace and security through the intelligence gathering at the facility and through the early warning of ballistic missile launches that it provides. It is key to US-Australian military cooperation, a cooperative relationship which unquestionably assists the United States but which is also of enormous benefit to the Australian military in being able to work closely with and, at times, within the US defence forces. It is a very important relationship and forms a key part of the US-Australian alliance. The US-Australian alliance is often formally dated to the commencement of the ANZUS treaty in 1951 or perhaps even earlier, to the famous article of Prime Minister John Curtin in his New Year’s message which was published on 27 December 1941, when he described Australia as looking to America in the context of the Second World War. Without question the prosecution of the Pacific theatre of the Second World War, with Douglas MacArthur being based in this country and the close personal relationship between MacArthur and Curtin, which in turn fostered a relationship between the Australian and American governments, was ultimately the basis for the US-Australian alliance.

We share key values with the United States of America: a love of human rights, a value of freedom, a system of democracy. The United States is our major economic partner and we are both engaged in a shared sphere of influence in the world, namely the Pacific. That is evidenced through the shared role that we both played during the Pacific theatre of the Second World War. There is no more important bilateral relationship that this country has than the one that it has with the United States of America. That relationship is a pillar in our foreign policy. Pine Gap is an intrinsic part of that relationship and providing for the security of that base is a very important obligation that our nation has. This bill will enhance our ability to provide security for the base and for those reasons I commend it to the House.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 contains three elements and I will speak briefly on the first and last before my main area of interest—that is, the enhanced medical and dental benefits promised to our Defence Force members and their families by the current government in the course of their election campaign in 2007. The first issue is in relation to the adoption of the emblem described as the red crystal and sometimes referred to as the third Protocol emblem, pursuant to the protocol III amendment to the Geneva conventions. I understand that 28 countries have so far agreed to ratify the convention, but I am open to correction as to an up-to-date number. Nevertheless, the amendment which this bill asks us to ratify for Australia demonstrates a gradual evolution from identifying organisations based on specific cultural or religious origins.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement uses symbols that reflect religious backgrounds, being a red cross to symbolise the Western world and a red crescent to symbolise the Muslim world. There is no denying that this distinction is causing some difficulties on the international stage, despite the fact that both elements of the organisation work towards the same end. My research indicates that there was an attempt to introduce a red shield of David that would represent Israel’s humanitarian organisation, but that did not succeed. As an initiative to neutralise these differences so that energies can be focused on the task at hand, the adoption of a universally accepted symbol is a positive move. It allows a third option to be adopted—that is, the symbol of the red crystal. I applaud the convention because it does not seek to overturn the use of either of the existing symbols, which some countries may prefer to continue to use. Without entering into a contentious debate over religious icons, I just say that I support this initiative unreservedly and will move on to the last provision of the bill.

I think the critical function that the Pine Gap joint facility plays in Australia’s defence structure is self-evident. Since its establishment some 40 years ago, it has sometimes been the focus of groups protesting various military activities related to the United States. That has certainly created some law and order issues, which have led to some legal challenges for the authorities. The provisions in the bill clarify the legal status of the facility and should assist in addressing any grey areas in terms of future legal challenges to its existence. Again, I support the provision.

I now move on to the core of my interest in this bill—that is, Labor’s 2007 election promise of free medical and dental care for ADF families. It is worth while repeating their promise. This is what they said prior to 10 November 2007:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities.

Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

It cannot get any clearer than that. Moving now to the 2008 budget, Labor’s first budget, what do we find? Their absolute promise was downgraded to a trial—so all bets are off. Instead of $33.1 million to give life to their core promise, the promise morphed into $12.2 million over four years to trial the concept. This is tantamount to a breach of fair trading legislation, which outlaws the practice of advertising non-existent bargains. When you go to get the bargain, they have suddenly just sold out and say, ‘How about this other great deal?’ The question needs to be asked: what on earth possessed you to make such a core promise when it is clear you had no idea what was involved? If you were so certain that you could state the promise in unequivocal terms then what has happened since?

I well remember the Labor candidate for Gilmore making his one and only promise for Gilmore, and that was the free medical and dental services for our Defence Force personnel and families at HMAS Albatross. He made no other undertaking during the campaign, and banking all your chances on a single promise can hardly be described as a challenge. However, there being only one issue for Gilmore does not say much for the importance of the residents of Gilmore to the Labor Party—just one promise, and even that could not be met. I think this broken promise is a serious breach of faith and trust with the members of our defence forces and their families. To rub salt into the wound, the government now wants to cut defence jobs. Where is their credibility as far as supporting our troops is concerned? Nevertheless, I am compelled to support this bill—not that I agree with it, but at least something is better than nothing.

In these uncertain times, our defence forces are our best insurance policy in protecting Australia’s sovereignty. We just deployed a contingent to assist in the Victorian bushfire tragedy, as we have done in countless civilian emergencies in the past. Yet what we are seeing here is the government turning their backs on our defence forces with a broken promise. They want to cut back on spending, and that will certainly have an impact on my electorate, not only for defence personnel but also for all the civvy jobs that are reliant on defence. Labor’s now broken election promise acknowledged:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependents, especially in regional and remote localities.

After that admission, why break your promise? The situation has not changed, and it is not the case that since that promise was made pre-November 2007 somehow ADF families no longer face significant difficulties. Gilmore is a garrison town and we are very proud of our defence men and women. HMAS Albatross is essential to our economic wellbeing. Our men and women are still serving in remote locations and Labor promised a free medical and dental service. The need still exists and that promise must hold. Labor must now explain why they have broken their promise. This breach brings into question Labor’s credibility in respect of their relationship with the defence forces. In Gilmore it resurrects the doubt that was created by the dissolution of the Fleet Air Arm, the civilianisation of the Defence Force under the previous Labor government and what is generally perceived as the antimilitary attitude of some in the Labor Party.

I support unreservedly the adoption of the red crystal convention and the enhancement of the legislation affecting the Pine Gap joint facility, but I support with reservations the provisions of this bill that allow only a partial trial of an unequivocal promise. There remain a number of unanswered questions, such as whether these provisions apply to the reserves and whether the families of cadets are included. Can the government provide clarification on how a household will be defined? What will this do to Navy Health and other defence-only private health insurance funds that currently provide reduced health cover for ADF families? Can the government detail what model is to be used to determine dependency? There are more questions that need to be asked and we will certainly be scrutinising even more closely what Labor are actually promising and, more so, whether the government have brazenly adopted Graham Richardson’s infamous motto of ‘whatever it takes’. My final question to the government on this matter right now is: will the government provide honest and open detail of the relevant proposed regulations?

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 was presented to the House in December 2008 and seeks to make amendments to three separate measures. The Senate has referred this bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to conduct an inquiry into the three distinct policy measures. It is due to report on 20 February this year. The first of the three measures will amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to implement the third protocol to the Geneva conventions in Australian legislation. The second measure will amend section 124 of the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an ADF member or cadet or family member of an ADF member. The third measure amends the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to insert a provision for specific arrangements for the joint defence facility at Pine Gap to be a prohibited area.

Schedule 1 of the legislation seeks to amend the third protocol of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to recognise the red crystal in situations where the red cross could be considered culturally inappropriate, predom-in-antly in Islamic countries. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is renowned as an international humanitarian movement with a mission to protect human life and health and to prevent and alleviate human suffering without discrimination based on nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinion. Since its inception, the movement has utilised the red cross and red crescent emblems as devices to protect its medical services, but some countries have found it difficult to identify with the symbols, believing them to have religious significance or meaning. The red crystal emblem has no religious, ethnic, racial, regional or political connotations. The amendment ensures that the new emblem is used only with the consent of the Minister for Defence. The bill also amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to ensure that the new Geneva emblem is covered by the existing offences relating to the improper use of the emblems of the Geneva conventions.

The introduction of an additional neutral protection symbol has been under discussion for a number of years, and the red crystal has been the most popular proposal. This new symbol is referred to as the ‘third protocol emblem’ in additional protocol III. It entered into force internationally on 14 January 2007, and in May 2007 protocol III was tabled in parliament. It is now time to take binding treaty action to ratify the protocol. Therefore, this bill incorporates the red crystal emblem along with the existing emblems, the red cross and the red crescent, into Australian statutes. I support schedule 1 of this bill.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about some of the 115 million Red Cross volunteers, particularly those in Australia who do such a wonderful, quiet but invaluable job, as we are seeing in the Victorian bushfires. Tonight I want to focus on the Brunswick Red Cross unit in my electorate, which is the oldest unit in Western Australia having been formed in July 1915 in historic Alverstoke by members of the Clifton family. The unit now has 45 members. While many units in Western Australia are closing owing to a lack of support, especially in wheat belt towns, the Brunswick unit continues to attract members. The Brunswick Red Cross unit has a disaster committee. They are specially trained personnel on standby in an emergency situation to cover registrations and inquiries for disaster affected people and to do tracing if required. The Brunswick group assisted with the 1964 Brunswick floods, the 1979 Cyclone Alby that caused widespread devastation, and the 2002 Bali bombings, organising for clothing and blankets to be sent to Bali for survivors.

The Red Cross is always on hand to provide food and assistance for firefighters during the bushfire season, and we are seeing that this week with the hands-on, selfless but vital work of the countless Red Cross volunteers in the Victorian fires. I have no doubt that countless numbers of Red Cross volunteers are working right now across the fire ravaged areas. The Brunswick volunteers are currently working as well with the community in providing information about how south-west residents can donate to the Victorian bushfire appeal.

In around 1920, the Red Cross in Brunswick played a vital role in my own life. My mother was a little girl of probably between four and six when her family’s farm was razed by fire. One of the vivid memories my mother had was that, because it was wash day, everyone had only one set of clothes as all the washing was on the line. So effectively the little children had no clothing, and their house was burnt down as well. It was the Brunswick Red Cross that came to the family’s aid and provided the basic, simple things in life to allow the family to go on.

The Brunswick Red Cross unit covers the shires of Harvey, Dardanup and Capel, working in conjunction with many organisations offering services during an emergency. Brunswick has several older members and other unit members make certain they are picked up for meetings and outings, because some of these ladies do not have transport, as this allows them to keep in contact and enjoy a social atmosphere away from their homes.

The city of Bunbury in my electorate has a Red Cross shop, and volunteers provide a soup patrol, carer support, multiple births support, cosmetic care and Telecross. The towns of Donnybrook, Collie, Augusta and Busselton also have popular Red Cross shops. A blood bank is located in Bunbury, and the van travels to towns all over the South West.

Fundraising is still a very important part of Red Cross activities, and doorknocking is coordinated in Queensland. Equally, I am sure the Red Cross units in Queensland are an integral part of the management and support of those affected by the floods. Red Cross units are continually briefed by headquarters on the international activities of the Red Cross and continually receive the latest updates when they attend regional rallies.

With regard to schedule 2 in the bill, the intention is to provide a broadening of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment to an ADF member, cadet or ADF family member. Labor’s election promises were very clear, promising free medical and dental care for ADF families, stating that:

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

Instead of honouring this promise to invest $33.1 million to start those 12 defence family healthcare clinics, with a focus on remote base locations and major regional centres, defence families in these limited locations are now having to source their own doctor and dentist. The commitment to provide defence healthcare clinics in Townsville and Darwin has also been scrapped, with the two defence family healthcare clinics promised at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville and Robertson Barracks in Darwin replaced by a plan in which defence families will have to access health department GP Superclinics in Darwin and Townsville. I also note that the government’s plan mentions only five of the 10 rural and remote defence locations. I can only conclude that this means it will not deliver on its promise to defence personnel in Townsville, Edinburgh, Elizabeth North, Amberley, Williamtown and Darwin.

I am concerned that this bill does not provide details of proposed regulations for the entitlements for family dependants of ADF members, firstly, to be entitled to a standard consultation by a general practitioner for no charge and, secondly, to be entitled to benefits of up to $300 per dependant per annum for basic dental services as stated by the member for Lingiari in October. It is also not clear whether the nature and extent of the medical and dental treatment will be detailed in the proposed regulations or whether it will be left to the discretion of the diarchy or the individual service chiefs as is the current case with the relevant defence instructions. In the interest of transparency and accountability it would be preferable that the medical and dental care entitlements be contained in regulations which would be subject to disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 rather than in Defence documents such as the defence instructions.

The extent of medical and dental treatment, if any, available to persons other than members of the ADF and their families is also not clear. The terms ‘member of the household of the member’ and ‘a dependant of the member’ are not defined in either the Defence Act or the bill. It is therefore not clear whether the proposed medical and dental treatment could, for instance, be extended to people other than spouses and dependant children who are ‘members of the household of the member’. It would seem to rely on the extent of their dependency. It is not clear whether the member of the household of the ADF member must be totally or need only be partially dependent on the member in order to receive the proposed medical and dental care.

With regard to reservists, section 4 of the Defence Act defines a member as including any officer, sailor, soldier or airman. It is not clear whether the bill intends that reserves and their families are to be included in the class of persons who will have access to the proposed medical and dental treatment. This is probably unlikely given that in section 4 and elsewhere in the Defence Act—for example, section 58B—a distinction is drawn between the terms ‘member’ and ‘member of the reserves’. The legislation amendments deal with the provision of health care to cadets. However the extent of health benefits available to cadets has not been made clear. The government must provide details of the relevant proposed regulations in relation to the free health care currently provided to ADF personnel and to ADF dependent spouses and children.

I have other questions about the lack of detail and explanation—for example, are the families of cadets not currently included in the scheme going to be covered in the future? What are the ramifications for Medicare cover for ADF dependants? Will there be fringe benefits tax to family members? The bill, the EM and the second reading speech are remiss in answering the question of whether reserves and their families will be covered for medical and dental treatment. Under section 4 of the Defence Act 1903 a member includes an officer, sailor, soldier or airman, which would suggest that reserves would be covered. Are reservists and their families going to be included in the provision? And why do families receive preferential treatment over reservists? Why is free health care offered to non-ADF persons before reservists, many of whom are currently serving their country overseas? What are the cost implications of the inclusion of reservists and their families?

Also the terms ‘member of the household of the member’ and ‘a dependant of the member’ are not defined. It is not clear whether the proposed medical and dental dependants could be extended. Can the government detail what the model to be used to determine dependency is? The term ‘member of the family’ includes but is not limited to a member of the household and a dependant of the ADF member or cadet. Can the government provide clarification of how a household will be defined? What will this do to Navy Health and other Defence-only private health insurance funds that currently provide reduced health cover for ADF families? ADF personnel are able to access free medicines through the pharmacies on base. Does this mean that the government’s policy will provide for free medicines to ADF families as well, and what are the cost implications of this?

Labor’s election promise acknowledged that ADF families can face significant difficulties in obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities. Now that the plan to provide ADF health clinics in these locations has been scrapped, how will the proposed trial where people must source their own GP and dentist help these families? Given that $203 million per year is spent on Defence health, Labor’s plan does not come close to delivering on their promise. Also, given the Australian Defence Force is still experiencing some recruitment challenges, this broken promise to ADF families will not assist in attracting people.

Labor promised his $33.1 million investment starting with those 12 defence family healthcare clinics, with a focus on remote base locations and major regional centres. The fact is that only $12.2 million over four years is now allocated for a pilot program, and this is $20.9 million short of the election promise. This means that only $2.4 million is allocated for the 2008-09 year. We have only four to five months left out of the year. This is forced savings indeed. Labor’s plan for defence acknowledged that posting ADF personnel to remote locations may mean that those families can face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants. I assume the government means those Australians living in metropolitan areas and not those living in regional and rural and remote areas, struggling to access the sort of health care that Australians elsewhere enjoy. I also note that the allocation of $2.4 million limits dental care to $300 per dependant and the families must source their own doctors and dentists.

In the five months to 30 June I would be very interested to learn how many ADF families have been able to adequately and regularly access GP services and dental care in these areas. The amendments proposed under schedule 3 in relation to the joint defence facility at Pine Gap will specifically declare the facility a special Defence undertaking and prohibited area directly under the act rather than by the existing process that requires a ministerial declaration and will provide a formal basis for any future prosecutions by removing the opportunity for argument about the validity of the declaration. I support schedule 3 of this act. I would have to add that I strongly support the Australian Defence Force.

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

I might make an observation about the member for Forrest. I wonder why she voted against the government’s stimulus package which put up $241.6 million for Defence Force housing. And why are opposition members in this place and in the Senate opposing this legislation? I note the member for Herbert is not in the House. I understand he is in his electorate in North Queensland dealing with issues to do with the floods. But he, amongst others in this chamber, voted against the government’s legislation to provide additional houses for Australian Defence Force personnel. So do not let us hear the member for Forrest and other members of the opposition come in here and say they support Australian Defence Force families when in fact they have voted against a provision which is explicitly designed to provide additional housing for Defence Force families. I will come to some other elements of the opposition’s contribution shortly.

In summing up the debate on the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008, I want to begin by thanking all participants, including the member for Forrest and the shadow minister and everyone else in the chamber who spoke on the legislation, for their thoughtful comments and support for this very important legislation. I note that there will be differences, but I am encouraged by the fact that the opposition has seen fit to support this bill.

The bill makes amendments for three separate measures. The first amendment is to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to specifically incorporate a reference to and description of the red crystal emblem and reference to protocol III in part IV of the act, and to annex protocol III as the schedule to that act. The bill further requires amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 to specifically incorporate protocol III and the red crystal in the Dictionary to the Criminal Code and to ensure that the improper use of the red crystal is caught by the offence of improper use of the emblems of the Geneva conventions. The amendment also ensures that the new emblem is used only with the consent of the Minister for Defence.

The red crystal will be of significant benefit in combat zones in helping secure the safety of eligible humanitarian workers from all countries, regardless of their location or political situation and free of any implication of religious significance. Incorporation of protocol III will be consistent with Australia’s longstanding support for the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. The new emblem is unlikely to be used in Australia for either indicative or protective purposes, given the longstanding recognition accorded to the red cross emblem. The new emblem may, however, be used by the Australian Defence Force in certain regions overseas. Incorporation would further demonstrate and enhance Australia’s credentials in international humanitarian law. It would also enable Australia to encourage states not yet a party to the protocol to ratify it both within our region and beyond.

The second amendment relates to the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an Australian Defence Force member or cadet or a member of the family of an Australian Defence Force member. The amendments to section 124 of the act enable a more comprehensive regime in the Defence Force regulations. The amendments will broaden the regulation-making power to enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an Australian Defence Force member or cadet or a member of the family of an Australian Defence Force member.

In relation to pharmaceuticals, it is intended that the regulations will cover the possession, storage, supply, dispensing and administration of scheduled pharmaceuticals by Australian Defence Force pharmacists, medics, nurses and civilian health professionals engaged by the Australian Defence Force. The effect of the amendments will be to create a regime that would ensure that the Australian Defence Force and its members are not hindered in the uniform application of their duties, here and overseas, by competing state and territory laws and will allow the proper embedding of uniform standards and procedures across the Australian Defence Force.

The third issue covered in this bill relates to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to explicitly provide that the joint defence facility Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area, with the insertion of a purposive clause to make it clear that the defence power is not the only constitutional basis relied upon to support the act.

These protections are essential to a facility of such sensitivity and importance to Australia’s defence and external relations to deter mischief makers and those with more sinister intent. The importance of this facility I am sure is well understood by those on both sides of this House. The consequences of damage or disruption are grave both in terms of our defence and that of our principal ally, the United States. As such, it would adversely affect our external relations with that country.

I once again thank honourable members for their examination of and comments on this bill. I commend it to the House. Before I conclude I want to make some observations about contributions made by members opposite—including the member for Forrest, who scurried out very quickly—in relation to this commitment made at the last election:

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

This is not a policy that was previously undertaken, advocated or understood by the opposition. It is not something that they went to the last election with. They did nothing about it for the 11 years they were in government. As befits our proposal, announced in the 2008-09 budget and consistent with our policy, we are initiating a pilot of free health care in the regional and remote locations of Singleton, Cairns, Katherine, Sale and the Karratha-Pilbara region. This first stage, which will commence in May this year, will cost $12.2 million over four years. In recognition of our desire to look at other opportunities, in October last year the government announced stage 2, which sees expansion of the trial to Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal. This means that we will be helping 16,000 spouses and children through the trial. This second stage will cost an additional $14.4 million in its first year and will commence in the second half of 2009.

I want to make it very clear that we are committed to this initiative. We have made certain that we will use an approach that looks at developing the best possible way and the most appropriate way of providing these services to Australian Defence Force families. I would ask the opposition that, when they are making observations and commenting about this, at least be factually accurate and understand the intent of what we are trying to do, and perhaps even support the intent of what we are trying to do rather than try to take cheap shots in the way in which they have done this evening in this debate. I understand, despite the rhetoric I used previously, that all sides of this House support the Australian Defence Force, and it is important that we work together to make sure they have the best possible conditions. It is important that we work to make sure that Australian Defence Force families are treated well and we know and believe that the extension of these trials will not only be of great benefit to Australian Defence Force families, but will be supported by them. I commend the legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.