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

We had an extraordinary situation yesterday. A motion was moved for the immediate production of the report on the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This review was commenced because the overwhelming feeling amongst serving and veteran members of the defence community is that the Inspector-General, whose job is to hear some of the most important cases involving military justice, issues of sexual assault, bullying and intimidation, as well as investigations into deaths—the overwhelming view amongst serving and veteran members of the community is that there is absolutely no independence in the office; it is just part of the chain of command. If you're a young woman trying to get some justice for a sexual assault that happened in the Defence Force, and you go to an institution that's just part of the chain of command and is effectively under the direction of the CDF, how could you possibly think you're going to get justice out of that—particularly if you're a junior member of the Defence Force—because you've seen time and time again how the leadership backs itself in.

We were seeking the immediate production of this document, and the defence minister and the defence department—which, last time I checked, was a $55 billion organisation—were in here doing what they always do: refusing transparency. It is their reflex action, saying: 'No, you can't see the report. No, you can't have it. No, we won't release it to the public. No, we won't release it to the veteran community.' That's what Defence did. But, with their $55 billion organisation, they failed to check that it had already been tendered and published by the royal commission. Who runs a $55 billion organisation where, for the purpose of a Senate debate, the minister's office can't even find out whether or not the report has already been tendered and published by the royal commission? I'll tell you who does: Deputy Prime Minister Marles. He couldn't run a chook raffle. He was in here fighting to oppose the immediate release of a report that's already been published by the royal commission.

In the course of that debate, we were making investigations in my office, hunting for any further information—and that's when we found the report on the royal commission website. The government resisted the immediate production of it, saying they couldn't possibly do that and that the sky would fall down if we had any kind of transparency in Defence. Some basic inquiries were made, I think by Senator Lambie's office, about when it got published, to a member of the executive—and what do you know? The report was deleted from the royal commission website, a week after it was handed down.

Is this how this government is going to treat the royal commission into veterans—that, a week after the report is handed down, when people find any evidence on that website or any tendered exhibits that are embarrassing to the government they're going to edit them and delete them? Who deleted it? Was it the Deputy Prime Minister's office who called for the deletion? Was it Minister Marles who called for the deletion? Is Minister Marles aware that his government is already editing the record of the royal commission a week after the report was handed down? Is it contempt? Is the Attorney-General going to investigate whether this is contempt of the royal commission? It appears the Deputy Prime Minister, or someone in his office, or someone in Prime Minister and Cabinet, is editing and deleting the records of a royal commission a week after the report was handed down. Will the government answer any of this?

Now we get this faux transparency from them. Now they say, 'Oh, here we are, tabling this document.' You're tabling the document because you've been embarrassed, because your incompetence, your malfeasance and your disrespect for the veteran community and the serving members of the ADF have been exposed for all to see. You're not tabling the document because you believe in transparency; you're tabling it because Senator Lambie and I handed copies out to the media and published it this morning in our own right. That's why you're publishing it. Embarrassing, incompetence and nastiness—that's what it is. (Time expired)