David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

We've now been waiting for some three months for an answer to a question about Exercise Talisman Sabre. Exercise Talisman Sabre, of course, is a biennial exercise, primarily between Australia and the United States. As part of that, Australian and United States troops regularly operate under a joint command structure. The United States have made it clear, in correspondence to the Chief of the Defence Force, that they have very real concerns in relation to the United States Leahy laws, which prohibit United States troops and any part of the United States military from having any combined operations with any foreign military unit that is suspected of serious human rights abuses or breaches. They indicated within months of the Brereton report that they had very real concerns about operations involving the United States military with the SAS and, in particular, the Special Operations Command. In raising those concerns, the United States made it clear that they were pausing any cooperation between the United States military and the Australian SAS, and they did so because the Brereton report outlined dozens and dozens of serious war crimes, including unlawful killing and appalling abuse of the laws of war, by SAS troops in Afghanistan.

A number of those allegations involve 2 Squadron of the SAS, including in the rotation in 2009 in Afghanistan. The then major who was in charge of that squadron was given a show-cause notice in relation to, amongst other things, appallingly unethical conduct at the unauthorised Fat Ladies Arms pub that was set up by Australian troops in Tarin Kot—conduct that I don't even want to describe here. It was appalling, disgraceful conduct, now notorious, which was a stain on the reputation of the ADF—appalling behaviour. For that and other matters, a show-cause notice was issued. In the face of the show-cause notice being issued, that officer resigned their commission and became a reserve officer.

Then—without the show-cause notice being responded to, without the matters being addressed, and in the face of our closest ally, the United States, saying clearly they had Leahy law concerns regarding those SAS units and their conduct in the Afghanistan war—the ADF placed that officer in charge of the combined joint special operations taskforce for Exercise Talisman Sabre, which just happened. The ADF knew the allegations against the officer. Indeed, they'd sent a show-cause notice sent against them. The ADF knew that the United States had Leahy law concerns about the conduct of a series of SAS officers, and, despite that, they appointed this officer from the reserves to the command of the combined joint special operations task force for Exercise Talisman Sabre, and that included command of United States troops.

We asked the minister some three months ago: given the United States has previously warned the ADF that allegations against Australian soldiers of war crimes in Afghanistan could prevent US forces from working with Australia's SAS under the US Leahy laws, was the US informed of the identity of the officer who would be in command of US special forces troops? No answer—three months on and no answer. We asked: did the United States agree to the officer being in charge of the combined joint special operations taskforce for Exercise Talisman Sabre? No answer, and no explanation for failing to answer that for month after month. We asked: was the Chief of Defence Force aware that the officer was being placed in charge of the combined joint special operations taskforce for Exercise Talisman Sabre? No answer, just this wall of silence and secrecy that the ADF erects. We also asked if the minister thought it appropriate, given what we know—the conduct, the show-cause notice, the US raising of Leahy law—that the officer was placed in charge of the combined joint special operations taskforce for Exercise Talisman Sabre. Why won't the minister answer? Has the minister raised this with the CDF, and how on earth did this happen? How on earth do we continue to spread the smear that's created by appalling conduct by a minority in the ADF? If that minority in the ADF are not held to account, their conduct smears the whole of the ADF.

There's a reason we have laws against war crimes. There's a reason why we have laws constraining the operations of Australian troops. The first is to comply with international law and to ensure that troops on deployment uphold the standards we expect of them. It's fundamental to a deployment. As the Brereton report made clear, those standards were grossly breached by a significant number of personnel in the SAS—grossly breached. As we're here today, the only person who's standing trial for that is a whistleblower. David McBride is the only person standing trial for that conduct. And then, far from the wrongdoers being held to account, in cases like this they get promoted up, even though our closest ally has raised concerns about it—and they're promoted up and put in charge of forces from the United States!

The second reason we have these standards in place is to protect the good people in the ADF, to protect the reputation of the ADF, to ensure that wrongdoers are held to account and to show that the Australian Defence Force will uphold those critical humanitarian and legal standards that we expect of our troops. When this kind of behaviour happens, it tarnishes the whole of the reputation of the ADF. When the minister has been given notice of this for three months and fails to provide an answer, it does the ADF no credit and no service, it does Australian troops no credit and no service, and it does the minister no credit to not face up to these things and be honest with the Australian public and with our closest ally, the United States. Let's not forget: this happened only two short years after the United States put the former minister and the CDF on clear notice that they did not want—and, in fact, legally could not have—their troops side by side with officers of the SAS where there was significant evidence to show that they had committed such gross abuses. Contempt of the ADF, contempt of the public and contempt of the United States—what an extraordinary situation.

Question agreed to.