Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a few comments on this first progress report on reforms to Australia’s military justice system that has been tabled by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. I commence my remarks where Senator Payne ended hers, and compliment her on making her usual sound response.

The background to this has been well documented in the initial Senate committee report on this matter. Basically, that earlier report into military justice found that Australia’s military justice system had a culture of bias, delay, breaches of privacy, poor investigations, failure of process, lack of communication and a lack of genuine, independent review. A lot of that was put down to the then prevailing culture within the armed forces.

The government in its wisdom considered that unanimous report from the various senators on the committee and came down in a very short time with a very detailed response, given by the then Minister for Defence, former Senator Hill. Senator Payne described the government’s response as a serious and thoughtful one. I am not so sure that I would go that far, but I would not be prepared particularly to demur from her description, because it was a significant response. I recall thinking at the time that obviously there had been some intense negotiations between the government and the defence forces, and I came to the view, in terms of the government’s then response, that it had gone as far as it thought it was possible to go without causing major and perhaps unwarranted angst.

Nonetheless, when the ALP responded in due course after considering the government’s response, it gave a lukewarm response because the government had avoided or chosen not to accept the major thrust of the Senate report to civilianise military justice. We indicated a concern then and we have not backtracked from that position. Nonetheless, the government’s response did address major institutional reform. It addressed process within the military. It did create extra positions and provide extra funding and it did undertake to provide better and more detailed training on a range of fronts going over the two years that were to come after October or November last year.

I have been publicly critical of the Defence Force and to some extent critical of the lack of change within the military on this issue. That remains the formal position of my party, and we are not yet minded to depart from that. It concerns us that we are not able to give more than lukewarm support and encouragement at this stage. It was clear from the written evidence and some of the comments made by senior persons to the committee in its public hearings that they thought they had undergone major change and that there was major reform in process, and I think they would be very disappointed at the findings of this bipartisan committee today. At best, this is a lukewarm response, but in reality it is a fairly significant reminder that there is an enormous amount of work to be done.

I say that because it is my current view that there are still major problems on the horizon and that there is not yet an acceptance of the need for cultural change or reform at all levels within the military. There have been two high-profile cases settled in recent times, and we acknowledge that and that the parties were satisfied with the outcome. However, there remain a large number of unresolved low-profile cases. The committee is still receiving significant amounts of correspondence on new cases and, apart from those cases that seem to warrant extensive media interest and high-profile and embarrassing moments in public hearings, it is not yet possible, in my view, to conclude that there is reform and closure of other cases, which would be necessary for cultural change to occur within the armed forces. High-profile cases are settled, and that is welcome. Low-profile cases are still of great concern to the partners and mothers and fathers of those people who have been assaulted, who may have died or who have been penalised in the progress of their career. Just because they are not on the front page of the paper or on the ABC news does not mean they are not important. They warrant ongoing and immediate review. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. (Time expired)

Leave granted; debate adjourned.