John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee’s First progress report—reforms to Australia’s military justice system. I would commend to the Senate this very important report. This is a very important issue, as I know all senators in this chamber understand.

I believe that the military justice system has been deeply flawed. There has been the perception that military justice has been about protecting the ADF from criticism rather than resolving problems and rather than fairness. If the committee’s unanimous recommendations had been implemented, criminal investigations would have been handed to the civilian police in the first instance and the matters dealt with in civilian courts, giving our service people access to the same principles of justice that are available to every other Australian.

The government’s response to the committee’s report was not to follow those recommendations. As the report of the committee reviewing progress has since found:

... many of the problems that were identified in the military justice report were manifestations of a deeply entrenched culture. Improvements in process will not of themselves change the culture.

I note that this happens at a time when the government is seeking to see a significant increase in the amount of recruitment in our Australian Defence Force. I also note the real and genuine concerns that are held about the high level of commitment of our armed services in overseas deployments. The government’s answer to this problem shows how out of touch it really is. What is it going to do? It is going to relax recruiting standards.

Recruiting standards ought to be regularly reviewed. Standards that are arbitrary and unrelated to capacity ought to be changed. But reviews and changes ought not to be based on some sort of desperate attempt to bolster numbers in the defence forces by lowering standards. When the Australian Defence Force has trouble meeting recruitment targets we ought to ask why that has occurred—what is the reason for it. We should ask that question and try to get some answers to that very important question before we have a headlong rush into lower standards.

One of the reasons why that has occurred was contained in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s report into the military justice system in 2005. It is alluded to again in this progress report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. There is, and there is known to be, a deeply entrenched culture in the ADF that leads to bullying and the covert or overt endorsement of bullying by responsible officers. As we know, that leads to physical and sexual harassment and to the covering up of that harassment by abuse of process and attempts to blame the victim. That leads to the victimisation of those perceived to be weak—people who might be injured in training and the like or people who might be different because of perhaps their ethnic background or personal temperament. These are real issues. We also know that those who report wrongdoing—in other words, those living up to the best traditions of the ADF—are too often stigmatised and too often informally punished.

The references committee report demonstrated a mindset in the ADF that viewed making a complaint as seeking to subvert authority. The progress report notes that procedural changes are not in and of themselves enough to change a deeply entrenched culture—a mindset, if you like—that permeates an organisation. They are just not enough. We need the government to act to change the culture, to take initiatives. Until such a change can be demonstrated, the ADF is going to find it hard to persuade young men and women to join up.

We all know—we all acknowledge—that young people join the ADF because they want to serve their country. They join the ADF for the right reasons. We have a responsibility to ensure that when these young men and women do join the ADF they are treated fairly, decently and with respect. That is our responsibility—the responsibility of government, of parliamentarians and, of course, of the ADF itself.

This is a problem—a real issue, in my view—that the government must address. I think that the minister and the government have to do an awful lot more than just pay lip service to the ADF’s recruitment crisis.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know if Senator Faulkner read my mind, but I think we are very much along the same line.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We so often are.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are; that is quite true. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee’s first progress report on reforms to Australia’s military justice system is terribly important indeed. I was a member of the committee that did the original inquiry. The committee’s view was unanimous that the military justice system had to be taken out of the hands of the military. Of course, that was not to be the case. The government determined that there would be some changes made in the processes and tried to bring in more transparency and accountability. Nonetheless, my reaction to the inquiry was—and I have said it here before—that I never want to revisit the sorts of situations that were put to us in that inquiry. We had to deal with the trauma that many parents had experienced where their children had been on the rough side of the military justice system.

One of my colleagues, in addressing this report on the last occasion that it was before the Senate, made a comment about my being fairly sceptical of what Defence might do. I think there is nothing wrong with being sceptical, in a healthy way, about Defence. I have learnt over a long period of time that what Defence says it does not necessarily do; as for what it does, sometimes you do not know about that and you have to dig deep to find out.

My colleague also said, I think, that I can be fairly dismissive of the approach that Defence adopts from time to time. That is true as well, but at the end of the day I have no ill motives towards the people who are in the Department of Defence or our serving forces. My motives are simply to ensure that we have the best conditions, the best equipment and the best training. Everything should be done to ensure that those who choose to serve their country are well and truly looked after and have everything at their disposal to enable them to perform their duty—in many instances a hazardous duty—in the best manner possible.

So, when it came to the review, for me the focus was on the need to change the culture, as it was during the original hearings. And I am still sceptical as to whether the culture has been changed. Obviously, it is not like switching a light on and off. One cannot just change the culture of an organisation overnight. And I must pay tribute to some of the senior personnel who are driving the cultural change within Defence to try and ensure that there is not a repetition of what we have seen previously.

But as to whether this reform has gone far enough, I must agree with Senator Faulkner: I do not believe it has at this stage. I still believe that there are some people within Defence who do not understand that Defence is a modern organisation which must, as such, respect the dignity, welfare and wellbeing of the people who serve us so well.

I will turn to the report for a couple of moments to address this issue of culture. Senator Faulkner hit straight on the appropriate quotes in this report, and I want to go to a couple of others. The committee noted in its report:

At this early stage of its implementation program, the ADF has demonstrated a commitment to improving Australia’s military justice system.

That is correct. There is a will, and it now has to be carried out. The report goes on to say:

The committee notes, however, that many of the problems that were identified in the military justice report were manifestations of a deeply entrenched culture. Improvements in process will not of themselves change the culture.

I am quoting exactly what Senator Faulkner quoted. Just changing the process itself will not change the culture that has, over a long period of time, left a number of people and a number of families scarred.

The report went on to note the role of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, the IGADF. The report said:

The committee is heartened by the positive approach taken by the IGADF in conducting audits of the military justice system that are intended to reflect accurately the health of the system.

I must commend the IGADF for the independence that is being shown. It lends some hope that through the parliamentary scrutiny that is now taking place, we will see some reform in this military justice system. The report goes on to say:

It particularly welcomes the commitment shown by the IGADF toward ensuring that unacceptable behaviour in the ADF will be reported and especially his determination to stamp out any form of reprisal directed at members reporting wrongdoing or making a complaint.

The committee report goes on to note:

The committee, however, draws attention to the prevailing cultural environment of the ADF discussed at length in the military justice report. It notes that even where there are formal and known avenues for a person to disclose information or make a complaint about inappropriate conduct, the workplace may effectively render them useless.

That is a tragedy in this day and age. The report goes on:

The committee stresses that a fundamental change in the ADF mindset must also occur to overcome the stigma attached to reporting wrongdoing or making a complaint.

Then it says:

Registering a complaint should not be contrived as seeking to subvert authority. Authority must command respect, not demand it.

I think that that has been part of the problem in the past. There has been a confusion between the dispensing of military justice and the right of an officer or a senior NCO to command their troops. Anything that is seen as contravening the authority is therefore seen as being subversive and trying to break down the processes within the military itself. Of course, that is the furthest thing from the truth. As the report said, if a person seeks to complain about injustice that is prevalent or applying to a person in a particular situation within Defence, that should not be construed as seeking to subvert authority.

I know that from time to time there are people who will seek to use the system, but that is not everyone. There are very few, a very small minority indeed. But those who seek to use the system properly should not be discouraged or dissuaded from doing so by the use of military authority to suppress the rights and the wellbeing of those serving in our defence forces. Our defence forces are engaged in many theatres now, whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Solomon Islands, Timor Leste or wherever else throughout the world. They are entitled to know that they are going to be treated with respect as individuals in their serving capacity within the Australian Defence Force. I commend the report to those who have an interest in military justice and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.