Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the ADF's resistance-to-interrogation training together with documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In speaking to this report, I just want to put on the record the collegiate nature of the work of the committee. As always, we have attempted to get a well-balanced report based on evidence, and it has been a successful endeavour.

This report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee examines a number of issues surrounding the operation of what is commonly referred to as Defence's resistance-to-interrogation training activities.

The committee accepts that all military operations conducted overseas carry some risk that ADF personnel may be captured, detained, interrogated and exploited by an adversary, foreign military or foreign government. RTI training is designed to mitigate this risk by simulating the realistic captivity of participants by using trainers to role-play a variety of capture scenarios.

The committee's report clearly differentiates between RTI training and conduct-after-capture training. Defence conducted a review of RTI training in 2004 which incorporated a number of changes including improvements to safety and accountability. As a result of the review, the training was renamed conduct after capture in 2006.

Defence told the committee that conduct after capture also brought Defence's training in to line with Australia's coalition and NATO partner best practices. It told the committee that a legal review of the training framework completed in April 2016 and conducted by a senior counsel of the NSW bar found that the training is compliant with Australian domestic law and applicable international legal obligations.

This inquiry at the outset presented two practical difficulties for the committee. First, the committee decided early on to receive all submissions in camera due to the sensitive nature of the evidence which disclosed details of the training methods used by Defence. The committee accepted Defence's argument that disclosing details of RTI training methods could, in a worse-case scenario, pose a risk to the lives of ADF personnel captured or detained in the future. However, in finalising its report the committee agreed to publish some non-sensitive in camera evidence to enable readers to understand the basis of the committee's findings and recommendations.

The second difficulty faced by the committee is that it received only a handful of submissions from ADF personnel who participated in RTI training in the 1990s, and one submission from an officer who completed conduct-after-capture training after 2004. To assist the committee, Defence agreed to put together a sample video which the committee viewed at the Russell Offices in February together with a confidential briefing by a subject-matter expert.

The committee's main concerns as summarised in the report relate to the conduct of RTI training during the 1990s and the lasting negative effects of the training on participants. It became clear to the committee as it heard evidence from those who had completed the training that the controls currently in place for CAC training were not in place during the 1990s and early 2000s. The Australian Psychological Society told the committee that it is safe to assume that up to 10 per cent of RTI training participants may continue to live with physical and psychological injuries.

The report identifies three main areas of concern and makes five recommendations.

First, the committee questions whether Conduct after Capture Level C practical immersion training, which was introduced in 2006, is the most effective and safest method to enable ADF personnel to survive with dignity in the event of capture. It remains an open question whether the risk of injury to participants is too high and outweighs any potential operational benefits. Indeed, some witnesses speculated whether this type of training has any proven benefit at all.

Second, the committee was disturbed by allegations that Defence failed to obtain the consent of some participants before the commencement of RTI training. It also heard evidence that on at least one occasion in 2006 volunteer declaration forms were provided to trainees only after they had been captured. The committee is not convinced that Conduct after Capture training can be undertaken with participants' 'informed consent' when details of the training, including the risk of injury, are not fully disclosed. This is why the committee recommends that participants be provided with all relevant information on the nature of the training activity before they sign a volunteer declaration form.

Third, the committee heard some disturbing evidence from former and serving ADF officers who are living with chronic and debilitating physical and psychological injuries caused by the RTI training they completed in the 1990s. The committee is concerned that a potentially large cohort of RTI trainees in the community may have acquired a physical or mental health condition long after completing their RTI training, but did not seek treatment or assistance from Defence or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Defence does not have a process to identify and assist these former trainees, a situation the committee believes Defence should rectify.

The committee believes that Defence should be doing more to accept its duty of care for ADF personnel who were physically and psychologically injured due to their RTI and CAC training but never received any follow-up assistance and treatment by Defence. The committee recommends that Defence conduct an audit of its records to identify and reach out to those individuals who participated in RTI and CAC training, and provide advice and support for those who continue to live with physical and psychological injuries as a result of their training experience.

I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.