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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately that this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to:

(1)

hold the Minister for Defence to acceptable standards of accountability and responsibility;

(2)

take action to protect the welfare of SAS soldiers and their families;

(3)

dismiss the Minister for Defence:

(a)

over his incompetent handling of the SAS pay scandal which has caused significant financial and emotional harm to SAS soldiers and their families; and

(b)

for his contradictory statements to the House and the attempted cover-up of the Minister’s personal knowledge of the harm the SAS pay scandal has inflicted on the families of SAS soldiers.

It is remarkable that, on a day when the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has said that there is not one job in Australia that is safe, the Prime Minister has decided to secure one job—the job of his incompetent, careless, slovenly, misleading Minister for Defence, who stood here just a few moments ago and misled the House, not for the first time, when he said that he was only aware of one phone call from the family of an SAS soldier. Yet we have an email, which he has too, which he received from the partner of an SAS soldier and to which he replied himself. He replied himself and yet he is not aware of it! The list of the things this Minister of Defence does not know is very long indeed. He did not know there was a problem with SAS soldiers having their pay docked. He did not think there was a problem with putting soldiers on the front line and their families on the breadline. He did not realise, he said, that there were many emails and complaints coming to his office until he learnt about it some time between question time yesterday and this morning. Now, of course, we know that one of those emails was one to which he personally replied himself, signed Joel Fitzgibbon. This is an email he was not aware of, apparently!

Yesterday the minister said, ‘There is a bond of trust between our armed forces and the government,’ and that is true. It is a bond of trust between our armed forces, the men and women we send into harm’s way, the men and women to whom we say, ‘Take our uniform, take our flag; put your lives on the line; we are with you.’ And that bond of trust has been shattered by this minister. There is nothing more important to our national security than the morale of our armed forces. They know that they must go where they are told. They know that in their service they run the risk of death and worse. They know they take on that risk but they believe—or used to believe—that there is always a government standing behind them, that there are always people who care, people who will look out for them and their families, people who will ensure that they are cared for and will stand behind them as loyally as we ask them to stand up for us. And what do we have here? This is not a minister who has just made a mistake, who has made an error of judgment. For months and months he has known, as has his Prime Minister, that our finest fighting men were having their pay docked. They were getting little or nothing in their pay packets. We were told on 22 October that this error was going to be fixed, and nothing happened.

When the minister was brought into this House to explain how this could be so, how he could have been so careless, so indifferent, so heartless, so unfeeling about our own soldiers, he said, ‘Oh, it was a problem with the computer.’ He sounded like a clerk in the billing department of a department store explaining to his boss a problem with his inventory. This is not an inventory—these are soldiers; these are fighting men. They are the best that Australia can put in the field, but the best of us have received the worst and most callous bureaucratic indifference from this minister.

There is nothing more important to our armed forces than morale. If morale is undermined, the effectiveness of our armed forces is undermined. The Prime Minister has been as culpable as his minister, because he sat next to that minister on 22 October. He would have realised then, if he had not before, that soldiers were not being paid. The Prime Minister heard that, and he heard his minister say the problem would be fixed. A Prime Minister who was committed to the armed forces, who saw our soldiers as more than a series of photographic opportunities, would have brought that defence minister into his office, sat him down, and said: ‘Come on, Joel, fix it. It’s got to be fixed right now.’ Everyone on this side of the House knows that is exactly what John Howard would have done. It would have been fixed within the hour. There would have been an announcement, apologies would have been given, financial positions would have been reinstated and the soldiers would have known that behind them there was a government, led by a man who was committed to them.

What we have had is a Prime Minister who took this minister at his word, took no interest in whether the problem was being solved, and now one slipshod explanation after another has been revealed. This is a minister for whom the excuse ‘the dog ate my homework’ would be an improvement on the pathetic excuses he has given us today. He has blamed everybody but himself. It has been embarrassing to sit in the House and listen to this pathetic string of excuses. What do we have now? We have a minister in whom our fighting men and women can have no confidence, because they know that it was only after intense political pressure and public pressure, which this minister said should never have occurred, that something would be done. This is the remarkable thing: the minister deplored and decried the fact that members of parliament, including the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who represents many of these soldiers, whose barracks are in her electorate—have taken up their cause, and yet we know that had she not done that, had the member for Paterson not done that, had the shadow minister for defence, Senator Johnston, not done that, had the opposition not stood up for these men, nothing would have happened—a big fat nothing, just like these men got in their pay packets in January. That is all they would have got, and one pathetic excuse after another.

There is a principle of ministerial responsibility. This minister can blame the defence department, he can blame its computers and he can blame the dog that ate his homework as much as he likes but, as a matter of law and principle, he is responsible. He is the Minister for Defence; he is responsible for everything that is done in the defence department. This is not a problem that occurred without his knowledge; he has known all about it for months. Each and every Australian knows and, more importantly, each and every member of the Australian armed forces knows that this problem could have been fixed in a few hours. All it needed was leadership, commitment and will, and the minister had none of those. He was not prepared to lead, he has no commitment to the armed forces and he was not prepared to do the work, to make the effort to get the thing right and to ensure that the soldiers were paid.

He said yesterday that he was disappointed that this had ‘descended into a debate about who is more supportive of our troops’. It is a debate about who is more supportive of our troops, because I cannot imagine anybody who could be less supportive of our troops than the Minister for Defence. The only honourable thing for the minister to do is to resign. If he will not do that then the Prime Minister is letting down our soldiers, he is betraying the defence of Australia and he is contributing to undermining the morale of our armed forces by leaving this incompetent in the job that he holds today.

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. Mr Speaker, let me read some words to the members of this House. Let me quote from Hansard:

The core element of the Westminster system of government is ministerial accountability to parliament and to this House. The last time I looked, honourable members, the person who answers to this parliament on behalf of the government was called the Prime Minister—

Not the defence minister, not the foreign minister, but the Prime Minister. He is the core of the accountability system that is supposed to operate in this House today. Members, who said those words in February 2005?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It was the Prime Minister, who has left this chamber and walked out on a censure motion against him. What has happened to the standards of prime ministerial accountability and responsibility when this Prime Minister walks out on a very serious censure motion involving the incompetence, the ineptitude, of the Minister for Defence?

It is one thing for the Minister for Defence to blame his department for failing to pass on information; it is another thing for the minister to say to this House, as he did this afternoon:

I thank the member for her question. The simple answer is: because I was only aware of one of the calls.

Yesterday this minister led the House to believe that there was only one phone call from an anonymous woman who would not give her details, would not give her phone number and would not give her position. I am afraid that is not true. This minister engaged in email correspondence with the partner of one of the SAS soldiers involved in this pay scandal. There was not one woman without a name, without a phone number and without details. This woman wrote to the minister’s office and the minister replied personally to the email with her name, her email address and the most detailed description of the hardship that her partner had been put through. She described how difficult it was for them to make ends meet because of this pay scandal. On 11 February she wrote an email to the minister, to which the minister responded. She said:

All we want is to have a swift resolution to this issue. My partner is now considering leaving the Army and getting a job in another field. For someone who has always wanted to be in the Army and loved his job, it is a sad day when he considers leaving. I cannot believe that people further up the chain would want these highly-trained soldiers, which we have spent a lot of money on, leaving the Army because of this issue. We need a result and fast before more decide their only option is to leave.

Minister, you sent an email back to this woman. Minister, you told this House yesterday that you had had one anonymous phone call. You emailed this woman back and blamed someone else, and you said on 13 February, ‘I am aware this situation has not been handled well.’ Is that any response to the partner of an SAS soldier who is considering leaving the Army after a long and distinguished career because of your incompetence, your ineptitude, your inability to solve what is just an administrative problem? And this was not a computer glitch, Minister. That was another misrepresentation to this House. It was not a computer glitch; it was a bureaucratic decision that the minister could have overturned. It was a decision about pays that this minister could have fixed in May 2008 when the tribunal handed down its determination.

Minister, you said that you did not even know about this until it was raised in Senate estimates. The minister said that he thanked Senator Johnston for raising it in estimates; otherwise, he would not have known about it. This minister has to learn about a pay scandal from the opposition; otherwise, he does not know about it. Minister, there were many people who watched question time yesterday, including people to whom you owe a duty of care. Many people watched question time yesterday, Minister, and they heard you say that only one person had contacted your office and it was an anonymous call. You did not tell them about the partner of a soldier with whom you personally corresponded—‘Yours sincerely, Joel Fitzgibbon’—and you repeated today that you were only aware of one phone call. That is not true, Minister. There have been numerous emails, phone calls and contact not only with your office but also with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. And this was in the third question time in a row. Didn’t the minister go back to his office on the first day and say: ‘Show me what correspondence there has been. Have I written emails? I am brain dead. I do not know whether I wrote an email just a couple of days ago.’ Minister, you replied to this woman on 13 February. Minister, in the event—and if the Prime Minister were back here, I would bring it to the Prime Minister’s attention, but as the Prime Minister is not— (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. Is it appropriate in a censure motion against the Prime Minister for the response to be made by the Minister for Defence?

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

Order! The member for Sturt is warned. That was not a point of order. This is a motion for the suspension of standing orders, if the House needs reminding.

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

Of course, the government will be opposing the suspension motion. Fancy the member for Curtin coming to the dispatch box and beginning her contribution by talking about the principle of ministerial responsibility! Many of us sat on the opposition side for 11½ long years watching the Howard government become perfect at avoiding ministerial accountability. They talk about standards of defence ministers. This is the party of John Moore. Remember him, Mr Speaker? He used to come to the dispatch box when asked questions like this and simply say, ‘The government’s position is well known.’ Then, of course, there was former Minister Reith, the master of deception in the avoidance of ministerial accountability. We all remember only too well ‘children overboard’ and the way former Minister Reith sought to politicise the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for his party’s own political gain. Of course, some have not been too bad. There is former Minister Nelson, who appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning having a bit to say about the challenges of managing the defence portfolio. I know he knows them well. He was no doubt prompted to do so at this time, somewhat concerned about the way in which his own party has sought to deliberately politicise some of the most elite soldiers in our country.

I was surprised when the Leader of the Opposition came to the dispatch box to move a suspension. I thought he was coming to the dispatch box to table the pay slip that he has been relying upon all week to launch this jihad on me—and yet, as I have told the House, it was a pay slip which he misrepresented for his own political gain.

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! Member for Paterson! The member for Paterson was warned earlier.

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

Let me say that again: he misrepresented a pay slip of a special forces soldier simply for his own political gain. Was he concerned, as was Senator Johnston, last October about the likelihood that he would be bringing our elite soldiers into the political quagmire? Was he concerned about the impact that might have on the SAS family and their families? No. There was no concern for them. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is prepared to put his own political interests ahead of the interests of our elite soldiers. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is so low in the polls that he will stop at nothing, including embarrassing our special forces soldiers, for his own political gain. I suggest that, when I complete my contribution, the Leader of the Opposition might once again come to the dispatch box and table the pay slip so that we can compare it, so there can be absolutely no doubt that we are talking about the same pay slip. Then we can determine once and for all whether he has misrepresented the situation. Having said that, I am in no doubt that this is the same pay slip.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—Well, give it to us.

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

I would be happy to table this pay slip but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! This may not be a censure motion but it is a motion to suspend standing orders over an important matter. The House will listen to the minister in silence.

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

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am not prepared to take any risk whatsoever that the pay details of one of our SAS soldiers will go into the public domain and cause him grief. But this would be much easier. Here is the suggestion: after the censure motion, the Leader of the Opposition and I share a seat on one of the front benches and we compare notes—

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

How about you do your job, Joel?

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

The member for Fadden is warned!

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

and we can conclude absolutely whether we have the same pay slip. I can tell you that I am 99 per cent sure we have, but I think we should check.

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

Then read it.

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

The member for Paterson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Paterson then left the chamber.

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

The member for Paterson should walk out in disgrace because he has been part of this misrepresentation all week. By the way, the member for Curtin has been sitting on this pay slip for 11 days. For 11 days, she has been aware of this pay slip and also aware of the misrepresentation she was perpetrating upon the Australian people. What sort of local member—and someone as senior as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—withholds a pay slip which she is relying upon to launch her attack just so that she can disguise her misrepresentation of the facts? They talk about people resigning; it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who should today be considering her position.

Those on that side should take a leaf out of the book of Senator Johnston, who, having raised this once in the political domain—for his own political gain, I should note again—eventually decided: ‘That’s enough; let’s get this out of the public domain. In future, CDF, and in future, Chief of Army, I’ll send you a note. We’ll get together, we’ll talk about it and we’ll resolve these issues privately.’ Why did Senator Johnston say that? It is because he understands how important it is not be having a public and political debate about our SAS soldiers and their personal details and, in some cases, their hardships as a result of things that may have gone wrong in the system or as a result of legitimate recovery.

The opposition continues to run the line that I did not put an immediate stop to the recovery of these debts. Yet I have tabled today—and I am sure they have had a look at it by now—the paper trail within Defence which was the response to my directive, clearly showing that, since October last year, the order was given for no debts to be recovered. Unfortunately, I cannot be absolutely sure that Defence somewhere along the track has not still deducted some money from some soldier—that is the state of the system that I inherited from the former government. It cannot tell me how many soldiers are affected, it cannot tell me how much was deducted, it cannot guarantee me that recovery will not take place but they do assure me—and the evidence is in the paper trail—that my directive was followed and the stop action put into place. So the opposition should stop running this line—this fiction—that somehow I did not follow what I said I would do and put that stop into place.

I do know one thing. I am going to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s proposition now. She talks about the lady who contacted me. I did not know there was a link between an email and a phone call.

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

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

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

Yes, she emailed my office and, properly, she got a response. I was asked yesterday if I had met with anyone or talked with anyone. I said, ‘Yes, I met them at Campbell Barracks and one woman tried to ring.’ I did not know there was a link between her email and a phone call. It is just a silly proposition to suggest I would know that.

I do know about one link, and I do not make a big deal of it. I am pretty sure—and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not mention this—that the lady, the partner, who contacted me and whose action has been taken care of is the partner of the soldier who appears on the pay slip.

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

Order! The debate is now concluded.

Question put:

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