Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The Minister for Defence is putting the soldiers in the front line while he puts their families on the breadline. I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Defence for:

(1)

his failure to protect the wages and conditions of Australia’s elite fighting SAS soldiers who are in the frontline in the most dangerous part of the world, fighting for freedom against the Taliban, under our flag and wearing our uniform; and

(2)

in particular, the Minister’s:

(a)

failure to honour his guarantee to this House four months ago that these salary problems would be fixed;

(b)

failure to ensure the families of serving SAS soldiers did not suffer hardship;

(c)

failure to obtain full information about the nature and extent of the problem;

(d)

failure to intervene to prevent retrospective action that has resulted in soldiers being hit with debts of tens of thousands of dollars and large salary cuts; and

(e)

actions in undermining the authority of the leadership of Australia’s armed forces.

The SAS is in the front line in the battle against terror. They are in the front line fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and we have a minister here who knows nothing about their affairs. Twice he was asked how much their pay had been docked. He said he did not know. It is bad enough that he did not know, but the worst part of it is he does not care. He has put those soldiers on the front line and their families have received payslips with nothing at all—soldiers on the front line, families on the breadline.

How can we ask these men to put themselves in harm’s way? How can we ask them to fight the most ruthless enemy when we have such an incompetent defence minister, a man who is indifferent to the hardship their families are suffering as he wanders lost through a maze of excuses? Excuses do not pay the mortgage. They do not pay for the groceries. Excuses may serve to protect this incompetent minister for a few more months from the wrath of the Prime Minister but they do not defend the integrity of the obligation all of us owe to our armed forces. There is no greater or more solemn obligation for an Australian government than to do everything in its power to safeguard the welfare of those we ask to serve us in war, in our uniform, under our flag in the most difficult and dangerous conditions one could ever imagine.

What we have seen revealed in this House is an incomprehensible saga of bungling and incompetence which for almost a year has seen these elite forces let down by an extraordinary, unprecedented example of ministerial ineptitude and incompetence. The Australian people are asking today: how could the families of our men fighting in Afghanistan, taking on the most dangerous, most ruthless enemy in the world in the front line in the battle against terrorism open their pay packets and find there is nothing in them? How could it be that their wives and children back at home could be left to fret and worry over whether this pay debacle could leave them unable to pay their mortgages, in danger of being thrown out of their own homes? This is a national disgrace. It is a scandal and what is most scandalous of all is that this minister comes into the House this week and will accept no responsibility at all for a fiasco that has occurred entirely under his watch.

We had the incredible spectacle just a moment ago when, on the second occasion the minister was asked how much had been deducted from their pay, he finally said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said that he had no idea. He did not know how much had been deducted from their pay; then he started to provide figures of some deductions that had occurred years ago. Who does he think he is? A military historian or the Minister for Defence? We need a Minister for Defence who knows what is going on today. Our soldiers in Afghanistan need a Minister for Defence who they know stands behind them as securely, loyally, devotedly and courageously as we are asking them to stand in the line of battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He has betrayed our soldiers with his incompetence. He is a minister who promised more than four months ago that this problem would be fixed. But, unbelievably, he has not fixed it—not by a long way. We are not talking here about pay anomalies involving 20,000 people. We are talking about a relatively small number of men upon whose shoulders the heaviest responsibilities have been placed—placed by us, the people of Australia and its government. We put those responsibilities on them—to stand firm in the face of terror—and we have a minister who has let them down. It is just a small number of men. A competent bookkeeper—a competent minister, indeed—could have sorted this out in a few hours, as could even this minister if he had shown the slightest energy or willpower. He could have sat down with the records, worked out who had been paid and who had not been paid and sorted it out himself. We are talking about dozens, not hundreds, of people. We are talking about a relatively small number of men. But what has he done? He has dithered and he has dissembled. He has blamed it on computers. He has blamed it on his own department. He has blamed it on everybody but himself.

We perhaps saw the most contemptible example of the minister’s readiness to blame everybody but himself today, when, so desperate to wriggle out of this scandal, he twice—not once—tried to use a courtesy in the Senate extended by the shadow minister for defence, Senator Johnston, to our men in uniform as a fig leaf to hide behind. I can tell you that Senator Johnston’s appraisal of this minister’s competence is the same as that of everybody on this side of the House and that of every Australian.

This debacle arose after a ruling by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal in May last year, which reconfigured the terms and conditions under which some classifications of SAS soldiers would receive their pay entitlements. The change in arrangements was backdated to the previous August, in effect retrospectively revising their pay entitlements. This is not a case of mistaken payments where somebody suddenly finds millions of dollars dropped into their bank account or where the wrong address is given and suddenly they find all this money that they know has got nothing to do with them. These are men who were being paid in a way which the Army thought was appropriate at the time and which they thought and believed was appropriate at the time. They had no reason to believe they were being overpaid at all. I have very real doubts whether the Army properly, legally—certainly morally—should be docking their pay or questioning their pay at all.

The opposition raised this scandal at a Senate estimates hearing on 22 October—that is, more than four months ago. On the same day, this incompetent defence minister stood in this House and pleaded ignorance of the issues raised but then guaranteed to the Australian people that he would fix the problem immediately. He said, ‘I can guarantee to the House that this problem will be fixed.’ That is what he said, standing opposite me. The Prime Minister sat beside him at the dispatch box as he delivered that pledge. By rights, if the Prime Minister cared as much about the welfare of our soldiers as he should—if he really cared about supporting our soldiers as he should—he would have been apoplectic about this outrageous dereliction of responsibility. He would have taken this incompetent defence minister back to his office and demanded in no uncertain terms that the problem be fixed and fixed immediately. By rights, he should have also called in the Chief of the ADF to insist the problem be fixed immediately—no ifs, no buts, no more excuses.

I say again: the families of these brave men cannot eat this incompetence and these excuses. They cannot pay the mortgage with this incompetence and these excuses. These men need to be rewarded, they need to be paid and they need a government that stands behind them, a government that does not throw everything aside into a sea of excuses—‘Oh, it’s all too hard.’ You cannot throw the fighting men of Australia into the too-hard basket, Minister. You threw them into the front line of battle; then you sent their families onto the breadline by sending them a pay packet with a big zero in it. That is what this minister sent them.

True to his style, the Prime Minister shirks the hard decisions—and he shirked this one too. He sought to assure the House yesterday that he had taken a keen interest in bringing an end to this fiasco. But when exactly did the Prime Minister discover his sense of urgency about this appalling state of affairs? There was a moment that demanded resolute, principled leadership.

I remember when John Howard was Prime Minister. People would raise issues with him and, when he explained that there were challenges associated with resolving them, people would look him in the eye and say, ‘You’re the Prime Minister: fix it,’ and John Howard always set out to fix it. Everyone on this side of the House knows that, if the Prime Minister were John Howard, this issue would have been fixed immediately. There would have been a speedy resolution, a speedy announcement and it would have been fixed. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who does not care. Instead, the Prime Minister has gone missing in action on the men we send into action.

We send our soldiers into harm’s way to take on this challenge of terrorism, to take on the most dangerous enemies in the world, and the government is so indifferent, so unconcerned, that the minister will stand up in October and say, ‘I will fix the problem,’ and in January payslips are received with nothing on them: nothing to pay for the mortgage, for the rent, for groceries—nothing. That is what they got. We talk in this House all the time about the gratitude of the nation to our men in uniform. We talk about the thanks of a grateful nation. Well, the SAS can say to this minister, ‘Thanks for nothing.’ That is what they got from him: nothing at all. More than four months after guaranteeing he would fix this problem the Minister for Defence has delivered nothing. His promise to fix the issue has not been fulfilled, and we know from the testimony of the Defence chiefs in estimates today that this promised resolution cannot and will not be fulfilled until May at the earliest. They have to wait until May. And the minister tries now to excuse himself and to seek absolution because the mess that he has presided over will be resolved at some point in the future. That is not good enough.

The fact is that a minister who has let down our fighting men once will let them down again. Our soldiers know about loyalty. They know about character. A minister who does not have the character to fix this problem immediately, who does not have the character to fix this problem when he said it would be fixed, will not have the character to stand by them again. Our men in uniform know that the only reason anything is being done is that the opposition has raised this matter again and again in this parliament. Let us be quite clear: the minister said, on 22 October, that he would fix it. Yet the directive that the Army issued to resolve the issue, so he claims, is dated 18 February. Is there anybody here, is there any soldier in Australia or serving us abroad, who does not understand that the only reason this directive was issued was because the minister knew he was going to be called to account by the opposition in this House for his incompetence? That is the measure of this minister: incompetent, slovenly, lazy and careless about the best that Australia can offer, the best that Australia can put into the field against the worst, the most dangerous and the most ferocious enemy. He sends them onto the front line. Soldiers on the front line, families on the breadline—that is the defence policy of this minister.

More than a year after these decisions to reconfigure the pay scales and allowances of the SAS were made, the problem remains unresolved. Why should our elite troops in the battle line have to be worrying about whether their families back home can make mortgage payments? Why should they suffer the distress and anxiety of receiving a payslip with nothing on it? Why should they be issued with debt notifications of tens of thousands of dollars, not due to an accidental overpayment as the government would have us believe—that would be bad enough—but through the retrospective stripping of those soldiers of their full pay entitlements?

It is only now, after the opposition has brought to light further evidence of the ongoing hardship and distress of these soldiers and their families that we finally get a commitment that no financial disadvantage will be suffered. Only now do we get a promise that when the time finally comes that all of this is tidied up, none of those families affected will be asked to repay the debt. But what we do not get, a year after this debacle began to affect our fighting men and their families, is immediate and unconditional action to waive all penalties imposed and debts incurred through this fiasco—not in April, not in May, but today. All we have from the minister is a form of weasel words designed not to fix the problem but to rescue his job. The only jobs package he is interested in is his own job. It is too little too late. It is much too late. The damage has been done. The trust has been betrayed.

We know that this incompetence is so great that the Prime Minister can have no confidence in a minister who blames everybody but himself—a Minister for Defence so cowardly that he will not take responsibility for any element of this fiasco. The one consistency we have had from this minister is that it was not him. He will not take the blame for anything. He asks our soldiers to stand in the front line, to stand up against the shells and missiles of the enemy, but he will not stand up for anything. He passes the buck. He passes the blame around as generously as he is stingy with dollars for our soldiers. He gives our soldiers nothing in their pay packets. Imagine that, Mr Speaker! Just reflect on that.

I ask all Australians to reflect on the character of a Minister for Defence who can say on 22 October that this problem would be fixed and in January dock all of the pay of one of our finest fighting men so there is nothing on the payslip—nothing. Talk about the thanks of a grateful nation! There is no thanks from this minister. The minister should have fixed this long ago. We all know that. He said he would, but he has not. The problem will continue and drag on for months. It is an outrageous dereliction, an abandonment of duty by a minister of the Crown. This minister, if he were honourable, would resign today and not trouble the Prime Minister. And if he will not do the right thing, if he will not accept responsibility for his incompetence, if he will not be prepared to say that he got it wrong—that he has failed and that he is too incompetent and slovenly to have this job—then the Prime Minister must act and sack him.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue, and I have to say that it is absolutely correct for the opposition to pursue it. If we were in opposition and I thought that our special forces soldiers were being underpaid or somehow unfairly treated or that a recovery action was taking place unfairly, I would be pursuing it as well. What disappoints me about the debate is that it seems to have descended into a debate about who is more supportive of our troops: is that side of politics more supportive of our troops or is this side of politics more supportive of our troops? I was always hopeful that that would not become a debate in this place. This is one issue that should rise above politics. We should always collectively endeavour to ensure that there is a bipartisan spirit so that when our troops are in theatre they know that all parliamentarians are behind them in every way and that they are not going to be the subject of political debate in this place.

In addition to that, I said earlier by way of answering a question that I do know these people well. I do not know them as well as I would like to know them—I do not claim to know everything about them—but I do know the Special Air Service Regiment well. They are a very tight family which maintains a very tight circle of trust. It is unusual for us to be having any form of debate about their operations or even their conditions of service, because they are a group of people who like to resolve things within.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Mirabella interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi is warned!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing that we have spent a number of days this week in this place talking about their internal issues. I know that they would be disappointed by that. There is no doubt in my mind that they would be disappointed that this series of events has caused them to be part of public debate in this country. I do not criticise the SAS soldier—I assume it was at an SAS soldier; Senator Johnston says it was an SAS soldier who came to him—for going to Senator Johnston. In fact, in a sense I thank him for going to Senator Johnston, because that made me aware of this problem earlier than I probably would have been. But I have to say that it would have been far more responsible for Senator Johnston to have come to me, instead of making a hero of himself in Senate estimates, and raised the issue with me to enable me to fix the problem.

This did not have to be a public debate. I know that Senator Johnston wanted his five minutes in the sunshine, a bit of publicity, because we do not hear all that much of him. I do not hear him talking about the white paper process, and I do not hear him talking much about Afghanistan, our most important deployment where our men are in danger on a daily basis. I put in place a reform program never before seen in defence in this country but there was not a word out of Senator Johnston. I would be very happy for Senator Johnston to criticise what I am doing in defence, because I am making some pretty tough decisions to ensure that we have less fat and less inefficiency and that all our money is going where it really counts—to the very people we are talking about today: the men on the front line putting their lives on the line for their country on a daily basis.

However, Senator Johnston does not want to talk about the appropriate use of force in the international framework, our strategic outlook or how we should respond as a country both in force structure terms and in capability terms. He does not talk about whether we need a balanced or a weighted force. He does not talk about how much capability we should have in Navy or Air Force compared with Army. We are not having that debate in this place because Senator Johnston has nothing to say—

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

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nor has the member for Paterson, I would suggest, who goes around the country presenting himself as the shadow minister for defence. He must send Senator Johnston absolutely mad, presenting himself as the shadow minister for defence on a regular basis. It is not surprising that he seeks to fill the vacuum left by Senator Johnston’s inactivity. It would have been a much more responsible act if Senator Johnston had come into my office and said: ‘Mate, I think we have a problem with our special forces soldiers and, mate, you and I both know we do not want this to be a public issue. We do not want the personal issues confronting our special forces soldiers aired as part of the public debate.’ If Senator Johnston had done so, I would have welcomed him to my office with open arms, got straight on to the phone to the Chief of the Defence Force and said: ‘Angus, this must be fixed and fixed now. This is unacceptable.’

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

Ms Marino interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Forrest!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But Senator Johnston chose not to do that. Senator Johnston chose to walk into Senate estimates, make a star of himself for five minutes and grab himself a headline or two.

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

Ms Marino interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Forrest is warned!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us go back to what took place here. Senator Johnston went into Senate estimates and, for the first time, the Chief of Army, the Chief of the Defence Force and I—all distressed—learned for the first time that the payroll system was deducting from the pay of special forces soldiers large amounts of money, in some cases money they rightfully believed they deserved. So what did I do? That day I called the Chief of the Defence Force or the Chief of Army—to be honest, I am not sure which now—and said, ‘We must stop this recovery action now and you guys must do whatever it takes to immediately fix this thing.’ The stop on the recovery action is still in place to this day, although it is not absolutely necessary because from 18 February the Chief of Army’s directive has completely waived or extinguished those debts.

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

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson is warned.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No special forces soldier in this country has a debt against his name because of the way in which Defence has implemented the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal’s decision—end of story. That is not to say that there is not some work to do. There is some work still to be done—in particular, making sure that they requalify for those allowances which now will be part of their more general remuneration. I remind the House that it was the special forces soldiers themselves who sought to have the allowances folded into their remuneration. Why? Firstly, it was administratively messy to have all these allowances. Secondly, by aggregating those allowances and merging them into their remuneration, there was the benefit of extra superannuation benefits. Indeed, the special forces soldiers asked in their submission that the matter be dealt with retrospectively so that the benefit would be enhanced.

The Leader of the Opposition says I still have not fixed the problem and that the problem is not going to be remedied until May of this year. He cries foul and says that this is an outrageous thing for our special forces soldiers to have cast upon them. The Leader of the Opposition can seek to have that amended, if he likes, but the whole idea of it going out to May is to allow our special forces soldiers who do not have the formal qualifications to secure them. If we called game over today, we would be back here next week. Notwithstanding booking $9 million of revenue into its bottom line back in, I think, 2004-05, the former government, of which the opposition leader was a member, did nothing to fix the informal nature of the qualifications and made no investment in the ICT system which has contributed so significantly to this problem. The Leader of the Opposition really needs to do his homework.

Unfortunately, I have not come in here with a written speech like he has. He must have known something was happening. But you would have thought, given the opposition propose to have so much expertise on this matter, that the person writing the speech in the office of the Leader of the Opposition might have seen that the idea behind the remediation program running until May is to make sure special forces soldiers have the opportunity to remediate the situation and gain the formal qualifications they need. That is a system that should have been put in place right back when his government sought to recover some $9 million from some 5,500 soldiers some time ago. They come in here and cry that the buck stops with me. Well, I am happy for the buck to stop with me. Again, this problem, by way of the Chief of Army’s directive, has now been fixed. No special forces soldier has a debt against their name.

I want to answer the question I did not get the chance to answer in question time, because the Leader of the Opposition, as obviously planned by his tactics committee this morning, decided to shut me down to move a censure motion before I had the opportunity to finish my answer.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! This is a serious matter. Do you want to hear it or not?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was: have I had any conversations with SAS soldiers about this issue? The answer is no.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

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

Order! The member for Casey is warned.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five days after this problem became apparent—that is, after the parliament rose—I made my way to Western Australia to Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne. Why did I go to Swanbourne? I went to speak personally with members of the regiment about this issue to get to the bottom of it, not just to listen to what the chiefs were telling me but to go and see the boys and find out what was going on. I had an afternoon tea with members of the regiment and, as I always do, I asked: is there anything more we can do for you? Is there anything we are not doing well? Are you getting all the training, capability and protection you need? What about this pay issue they are telling me about? No-one raised it with me—I am serious.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

David Johnston did!

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

The member for Sturt is warned.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one raised the issue with me. I said: ‘I am concerned about the issue. If you have concerns, please make contact with me.’ As always, I gave them a business card of my ADC, which is the usual process for military people to make contact with their minister.

My office advises that we did have one woman ring my office complaining about an overpayment. Unfortunately, she was unprepared—and I think that is understandable given the political nature of this issue now—to give us her name, number or situation. She just wanted my office to know that there was a problem. I appreciate her having done that because it reinforced in my mind that we still have problems. You have to understand that the stop on the recovery action had been put in place. So why was this woman having problems? Unfortunately, she did not leave her details but, as I said during question time, Defence recovers money from the men and women of the Defence Force, including the Special Air Service Regiment, all the time for all sorts of different reasons. The Special Air Service Regiment often ask to have their pay delivered in advance. If they are going overseas and they want their wives to be cashed up, they are paid in advance. When they come back, their pay stops until they catch up. Sometimes they come back from deployment and the system—their system, which I am determined to fix—does not acknowledge that they are home, would you believe, and they continue to get the tax-free deployment allowance for weeks, if not months. Defence legally and appropriately recovers the money.

Members of the opposition need to be careful when they throw up these examples of recovery. They could potentially be about the remuneration tribunal’s decision or they could potentially be about something completely different. Senator Johnston, in Senate estimates today, thanked the generals. He said: ‘Thank you. You have explained the situation. We are satisfied now that our people are going to be taken care of.’ But the Leader of the Opposition seems to be on a completely different track. Why? Because he still sees a political opportunity. (Time expired)

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This minister is guilty. This minister is guilty of gross incompetence. He is guilty of failing the most basic test of ministerial responsibility and accountability. He is guilty of failing to protect the wages and conditions of our soldiers, of failing to protect the welfare of the wives and the children of our serving soldiers, of undermining confidence in the leadership of the armed forces and of undermining the morale of SAS soldiers who are currently serving in Afghanistan.

We have heard some pathetic and lame excuses from the Minister for Defence as to why he has not been able to fix an appalling problem with the pay packets of a number of serving SAS soldiers. This has been going on since May 2008. No more of these excuses, Minister, as you walk out of the House. No more excuses about a computer glitch. No more blaming the computer. No more saying that no-one told you, that the Department of Defence is incompetent, that the dog ate your homework or that Senator Johnston has not told you. We heard the minister say today that he blames Senator Johnston for not bringing this matter to his attention earlier. It is now up to the opposition to tell the minister what is going on in his department! Is the minister telling the soldiers of Australia that, if they have got a problem in defence, they have to wait for the opposition to raise it in Senate estimates before the minister even understands what is going on in his own department? ‘Oh, Senator Johnston didn’t tell me!’ says the minister. That is a disgrace. The minister is guilty of the grossest incompetence in this regard.

Today, Minister, the buck stops here. Today the buck stops with the minister. This minister’s incompetence and inaction are causing enormous financial and emotional harm to our soldiers and their families. He has done nothing to fix the problem. Do you know when this came to the minister’s attention? At Senate estimates four months ago, and then last Monday, when it was on the front page of the Canberra Times. He had done nothing until it ran on the front page of the Canberra Times, and now we are told it will not be fixed until May 2009. That is 12 months from the time that these problems first arose.

The minister gave a guarantee last October to this House. He gave a guarantee—I assumed a solemn guarantee—to this House that he would fix the problem. He turned up in my electorate of Curtin at the Campbell Barracks just five days later and told the West Australian newspaper that the SAS were not concerned about this. He said:

Look I don’t think there’s any real sense of concern amongst members of the regiment.

These are people who are having their pay docked! He went on to say—and I’d listen to this—on 27 October:

The government addressed the recovery payments issue as soon as we learned of it.

Minister, you have not addressed this problem. You learned about it on 22 October, and today there are still soldiers who are receiving zero in their pay packets. The minister said—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Table it.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a transcript from thewest.com.au. I am happy to table it. The minister went on to say:

I think I’ll find them pretty relaxed

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will table a transcript of thewest.com.au of 27 October 2008. Address the problem, Minister. The troops are relaxed, Minister. Have you any idea of what has been going on? Members, I will read to you an email I received on 10 February, four months after the minister said he would address the problem. This is from a constituent, Minister. It is from the wife of a long-serving SAS soldier, the mother of their five children, and this is what she had to say about the minister’s handling of this problem. She said:

As you are the local member I feel it imperative to contact you immediately due to the urgency of the situation—

this was 10 February this year—

I am writing to you to express my concern about the depth and gravity of this situation. This has been raised with the Minister for Defence, the Director-General of Personnel and the commanding officer of the regiment.

She went on to say:

For us personally, as a family, we are facing financial ruin.

This is the wife of a serving SAS soldier, Minister.

We have had no time to prepare an alternative solution to the problem or have my husband retrained or apply for an exemption. We have a large mortgage and five children. We are effectively a single-income family and will not be able to afford to pay school fees, meet our mortgage repayments or put food on the table.

This wife of a serving soldier went on to say, on 10 February:

The anguish, heartache and stress that this is causing to my husband, myself and, more importantly, my children, is disgusting. My husband has served in combat roles as an SASR trooper in Afghanistan and Iraq and various other theatres on numerous occasions. He believes strongly in what he is doing. He is ready to lay down his life for the good of this country and its political ideals. We as a family have sacrificed a lot to support him, including many, many months spent apart in the course of the last decade or more. It takes its toll on us as a family unit, and now to be told that this sacrifice effectively counts for nothing is a total outrage and a personal affront to my husband, myself, our family and all the people who serve in a similar position to him.

Minister, she asked for your help. The SAS have been asking for your help, and you have done nothing.

Four days after receiving this email, I met with this woman, I met with the husband of this woman and I met with serving SAS soldiers and their families. As soon as I could get out of Canberra, as soon as the parliamentary sitting was over, I went back to Perth and met with them on Saturday, 14 February. They told me, Minister, how you had been treating them. They told me of their frustration at the way they were treated over many, many months. They told me how they had rung the minister’s office to inform the minister personally of the hardship and the trauma that they were facing. One soldier told me that he has been battling this pay dispute since last July. Time and time again, he was told it would be fixed. Time and time again, his salary was docked for a retrospective debt arising from the tribunal determination. That was a debt of more than $30,000—and he disputes it. I spoke to this soldier on 14 February. The last straw for this soldier was to receive a pay slip on 22 January this year showing he had received no pay. The debt recovery action took all of his pay. He got zero pay on 22 January.

One of these soldiers that the minister said would be pretty relaxed about all of this, one of these soldiers that the minister said showed no concerns, was at this meeting on 14 February. I asked this soldier how he felt about the way he had been treated. He said he was too upset to tell me. He feared he would be disciplined. He feared that he would lose his job. So he said, ‘I’ll write it down for you.’ This was a serving SAS soldier who was so traumatised by this that he could not tell me and he wrote it down. Let me tell you what he said. This is a man who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He wrote a list, in dot points, as to how this had affected him:

• financial hardship
• being paid less than my mortgage repayments
• reduced income with added enforced repayments
• major setback in short and long-term financial plans
• the stress of not knowing what is going on
• the constant worry
• the personal relationship stresses—

His partner rang the minister’s office—

• low morale, stressed, depressed, saddened, angry at work
• an unknown entity keeps changing the goalposts
• no direction, no official references—paperwork—nothing official until the pay is taken from members pay
• no one knows what is going on, where the debt is being over watched from all who is running the show

I agree with him on that. Who is running the show, Minister?—

• interest is charged on the total amount owed

The Department of Defence is making money out of this. He finished with this line:

• financially stable one day, deep in debt the next, through no fault of my own

Minister, this is as a result of the tribunal determination. The minister has failed to exercise the fundamental duty of care that he owes to all members of our defence forces. In this case, his incompetence and his failures are all the more acute and all the more appalling because they have impacted on the lives of the serving soldiers of the SAS, who have been serving overseas on active duty, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know what the government thinks of the defence forces. We all read that report in June last year about keeping the Chief of the Defence Force waiting outside the Prime Minister’s office for hours. We know the regard that this government has for members of the Defence Force! The minister says it was in October last year that he first heard from Senator Johnston that the salaries of SAS soldiers were being cut and they were being hit with retrospective debts of tens of thousands of dollars. Minister, that is an extraordinary admission. That in itself is reason for you to resign. If you do not know what is going on in your department, you should go. It was raised in Senate estimates, and the minister said that Senator Johnston is to blame because he did not bring it to his attention earlier.

We heard today from the chiefs of the armed forces that it has been a problem since May 2008. What has the minister been doing since May 2008 when the determination was handed down? Minister, the words ‘retrospective’, ‘pay’ and ‘soldiers’ should have rung alarm bells in your office. Retrospective debts were being raised for SAS soldiers from May 2008, and you did not even know about it. Today the Chief of Army said the problem first arose in May 2008. In the following month, when it was raised at Senate estimates, salaries were cut by 40 per cent. Salary deductions were backdated to August 2007. Debts were raised in the soldiers’ names. There was no transition period. Bang! Overnight, the soldiers were hit with debts of $30,000 to $60,000 and they saw large deductions from their pay packets for these so-called debts.

Just imagine the impact that this has had on the morale of soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for their country. We have heard assurances from the defence chiefs today that these soldiers have had assurances before. What they need is for the minister to take control, to fix the problem and to stop blaming everyone else for his inaction. The minister was forced to concede yesterday on Perth radio that the buck stopped with him. How very noble of him! He said, ‘The buck stops with me but the computer system is going to take a long time to fix.’ He could not even accept that it was his responsibility; he blamed the computer system. It is not about computers, Minister; it is about a woman with her five children, the wife of a serving member of the SAS, who is worried at night that she cannot get the money to put food on the table and pay the school fees. Her husband, serving in Afghanistan, cannot get a night’s sleep. He is worried sick about his family.

The minister has no idea what is going on in his own portfolio. He has been asleep at the wheel. The soldiers I met on 14 February told me that what keeps them going when they are in the field, what keeps them going when they are away from their families, is an assurance that this government will care for them. This government has failed. This minister must go.

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

What an absolute act of fabricated political foolery. What a joke. Let us be very clear about this: the opposition have no interest in bipartisan support for Australian Defence Force personnel, men or women. Let us be very clear: they are trying to make cheap political points out of an issue which is extremely important to SAS soldiers and their families—an issue which is being addressed by this government. Let us assume just for a moment that you were serious about supporting Australian Defence Force personnel and their families—I suspect that you may actually not be quite accurate in that determination. I have a very strong recollection of the use and abuse of the Australian Defence Force by the opposition when they were in government. I well recall ‘children overboard’. I well recall a Senate estimates committee with Admiral Barrie giving evidence about the way in which the Defence Force were being used politically by the now opposition when they were in government.

Now we see this shameful piece of political theatre this afternoon. Why is this a shameful piece of political theatre? Let us be very clear about this. The minister has taken decisive action. In October the Minister for Defence, on learning of this issue, instructed that debt recovery action should cease. The Chief of Army then directed that all debt recovery action would cease from 13 November. Since that time, the Army has been conducting a thorough audit to find out how many people have been affected. There are a couple of important things to note here. Not only did the minister take that action but also, when this was raised in Senate estimates, we took the opposition seriously. In fact on 23 October Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence, wrote to me in relation to this issue.

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

Dr Jensen interjecting

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

The member for Tangney is warned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about wheat for weapons?

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

And I am reminded of wheat for weapons. Let us be very clear: no-one in this place could have done more or been clearer in their concern or taken the issue more seriously than our defence minister and the Prime Minister. Let me repeat what the minister has repeated so often in this House: no soldier will be financially disadvantaged by the process of implementing this determination. Their cheap posturing and stunts—using our brave soldiers for political ends—should shame all of those opposite. I again ask the member for Curtin: when you were briefed by this SAS member and his wife—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not one.

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

Not one? More than one?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Weren’t you listening?

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

Did you bother making a representation to the Minister for Defence to highlight to him the issues that were raised in the meeting? No, you did not, because what you are about is a cheap political stunt. If a constituent came to me with a particular issue relating to a portfolio matter and an issue emanated out of that discussion, as a responsible local member—or a responsible deputy leader of the opposition or a responsible shadow minister—I would have alerted the minister to the problem. This is a serious issue. We now know what this is all about. It is not about trying to find a resolution to the issue; it is about trying to make cheap political points. And I noted that, during the course of his address, the Leader of the Opposition focused solely on the two cameras opposite him. He was not trying to focus on the House and to have a communication with us—again demonstrating the cheap political stunt that he is on about.

Let us understand this: the defence minister’s instruction to cease debt recovery remains in place. To deal with this problem in the short term, the Chief of Army issued a directive dated 18 February in relation to the determination that (1) any member who had a debt recorded against them will no longer have this debt; (2) any member who had repaid any debt will have that money reimbursed; and (3) any member who has been receiving reduced salary will have that money paid back. Army will also recognise the reality that, in many cases, special forces soldiers already meet the required qualifications due to the special operations training and on-the-job training.

Let me make it very clear to members opposite and to those who might be listening to this debate that there is no lack of intent on the government’s behalf to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. I go back to my point: we briefed Senator Johnston early in February about the next steps and about the audit that was taking place, to make sure that we got it right. Senator Johnston was okay with that—that was terrific. But what do we hear in the last week? We hear that it is no longer appropriate for us to deal properly with these families and it is no longer appropriate for us to try to seek a proper audit to make sure no-one is out of pocket and no-one is being disadvantaged. Let there be no doubt: this censure motion is a fabricated, political stunt. The Minister for Defence has acted decisively. The minister has acted properly. The minister is clearly in control of his portfolio. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.