Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Hansard source

In making a brief contribution, I want to put on the record my deep concern about this bill that allows women in combat roles in our military. I understand that there are many people who are going to have a different view about this and that this is couched as a striving for equality. But I believe that this striving for equality is more of a political move with the top brass in the military, of whom I note there are some in this chamber—including you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and you have my unending respect for your service to our country. But it's about blurring the lines between political correctness and sound tactics in the name of what I think is social justice.

The Daily Telegraph last year reported something that highlights the dangers, if I can put it like that, behind this move to push for females into combat roles in the armed forces. It said:

Of 70 women who applied for the Infantry Corps, just 40 progressed to training. Of those 40, just 11 have graduated, seven into the Regular Army. That's A drop out rate about four times that of our male soldiers.

Anecdotally, what you hear is that women are "breaking" during recruit training, which includes running up hills carrying 40-60kg packs, the typical load for Afghanistan, and casualty rescue exercises dragging an 80kg mannequin 50m.

Officially, says Defence media: "women moving through infantry training are more likely to be injured than their male counterparts." … US Marine Corps studies show a cumulative injury incidence of 80 per cent for females in basic training.

How does "breaking" women advance feminism? More to the point, how does it enhance our war-fighting capability?

That is from The Daily Telegraph. The same newspaper last year wrote:

Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male "Anglo Saxon" warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed.

"People just think it's crap," said one young officer. To overcome such common sense thinking, diversity experts have designed a $30,000 program effectively to brainwash young leaders in the Army to become "champions of change" and stamp out the "white Anglo-Saxon male" culture which no longer has a place in the military.

I'm interested to know, from the section of the act immediately before the section that this amendment intends to remove, how this is lawful? It is lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender or identity by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of the competitor is relevant. Let me get that point across: where stamina, strength or physique of competitors is relevant, you are allowed to discriminate and exclude individuals, for sport. But we are not allowed to do that in our armed forces. It's okay to say, 'Yes, women should play three sets of a grand slam tennis match instead of, potentially, five sets.' Or that, 'AFL women players are not to be in the AFL draft because they're women.' It's okay to say, 'You can't have a transgender person trying to get into the AFL women's competition, because physically they are a male.' The list goes on and on and on, because there is deemed to be an unfair advantage.

So, I wonder why we are imposing lower standards in order to achieve this goal of equality that is going to put women, potentially, at the front line of war and combat. In the US, there are a number of female officers who have come out strongly against women in frontline combat roles. Captain Lauren Serrano said:

Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into—

combat roles—

are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in—

frontline combat.

Colonel Anne Weinberg admits:

there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat … Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion.

I don't mind saying that I have spoken to serving men and women in the Australian Defence Force and also in the US Army, and I haven't found more than one or two who have supported women in frontline combat roles. And I have spoken to both men and women.

I recognise that this is contentious, as are most things I say in this place. Senator Moore, I can see you champing at the bit to disagree, but I'd say this: war is not a fair business; adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their opponent's moral standards or rules of engagement. In today's world, we know there are many gory and violent war tactics that are considered immoral, archaic and banned by international law or the Geneva Convention, but our enemies do not always adhere to the Geneva Convention or to international law. Our adversaries still want to give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to win. We do too, and that means ensuring the combat units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and to win. On that argument alone, I don't believe incorporating women into combat units is in the best interests of Australian national security.

In concluding, there are at least three people in this chamber right now who are far, far better qualified to make these assessments about this circumstance than me, and that includes you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and Senator Molan and Senator Fawcett. But I do want to put on the record that I have deep concerns about this and what the implications may be, notwithstanding the fact that I stand alone right now.