Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the first report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, entitled Incidents on board HMAS Success between March and May 2009 and subsequent events.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to give a notice of motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the second report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on its inquiry into equity and diversity health checks in the Royal Australian Navy be presented by 22 September 2011.

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

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to make some observations in moving this motion. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee launched an inquiry on 26 November 2009 in relation to and on the back of allegations that were made about misconduct on the HMAS Success. The terms of reference for this inquiry were quite broad: to address the number and significance of the allegations that had been made in relation to unacceptable behaviour by a number of sailors. The terms of reference also included a look into the equity and diversity health check of the ship, the subsequent removal of three senior sailors from the ship and the numerous administrative and disciplinary investigations that subsequently followed.

The committee advertised the inquiry, called for submissions and wrote to a number of individuals who they deemed were pertinent to the inquiry. In February 2010 the committee received private briefings from the Chief of the Australian Defence Force and the Chief of Navy. It was following the second of these briefings from the CDF that he advised his intention to establish a commission of inquiry and ask the former Federal Court judge the Hon. Roger Gyles QC to head up this inquiry. Mr Gyles's inquiry has essentially been undertaken in two parts, with a second part dealing with the general Defence processes that followed the decision to land the three sailors.

The report tabled today, I would like to note, is based on the findings of the first part of Mr Gyles's findings in his inquiry. I would also like to note that the committee has not been advised yet of the reporting date of the second part of the commission of inquiry to the references committee. It is interesting to note the volume of oral submissions that were made from witnesses to the COI that necessitated Mr Gyles calling the witnesses to provide evidence. He ended up calling a second session of hearings to hear all the evidence. From this the COI concluded its report in December 2010, with a redacted copy of part 1 of Mr Gyles's report being tabled in parliament on 22 February 2011.

The committee used the extensive evidence provided by the COI to reach its conclusions. Some 102 individuals appeared. There were 12 individuals who provided affidavits, and the transcript ran to some 4,866 pages. The first part of the Gyles report provides damning reading that I would encourage all senators to have a look at and indicated serious problems that existed on board HMAS Success during the time of the terms of reference: the March to May 2009 period. It details a litany of bullying, intimidation, threats and sexual predatory behaviour, all covered up by a culture of silence that ensured that members of the ship's crew were either reluctant, uncomfortable or fearful of reporting any wrongdoing or concerns. It reveals matters that have been of longstanding concern to the committee. Most concerning is the evidence that the young female sailors onboard—arguably the most vulnerable to any inappropriate behaviour—were subject to intimidation and verbal abuse.

The report also highlights appropriate questions in relation to the dispatch of inequity and diversity health checks. The terms of reference for this group was unclear. They were not charged with the conduct of an independent investigation, but rather conducted meetings in a bid to provide some comprehensive E&D education. The communication of their roles and functions to the sailors further added to much confusion. The committee is of the view that the management of the reprehensible beha­viour on board HMAS Success demonstrated a total lack of leadership. It indicated that poor judgments were made in attending to indications of alcohol abuse that fuelled inappropriate behaviour, a failure to exercise duty of care to the young female sailors, either in ignorance or in total disregard for the legal processes of the ADF, and significant concerns about the subsequent response to Mr Gyles's recommendations.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the ADF has been the subject of many inquiries and investigations. In only 2004, significant issues were raised in relation to HMAS Success. The military justice system has been found wanting in previous inquiries and has accepted recommendations that have been made in those inquiries. The committee remain concerned that this reprehensible cycle of unacceptable behaviour must be stopped for all time, and we look forward to receiving the second part of Mr Gyles's report into Defence processes.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few remarks in passing on the tabling of this report. As the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kroger, has quite capably covered the background and the thrust of the report, there is no need to replicate her comments because they were entirely accurate. I want to make one or two observations in passing on this ongoing saga of what is appropriate behaviour and what is not appropriate behaviour and the reaction of senior personnel within Defence when things become unfortunately public. The back­ground to this is quite clearly on the public record. I think it is fair to say that the opposition some considerable time ago became concerned at the treatment of three senior petty officers, their removal from the ship in Singapore under difficult circum­stances at best and the subsequent treatment of those three senior petty officers by different levels of command within Navy and the armed services generally. There were serious concerns as to their treatment. and whether they had received natural justice, proper process and the like.

Arising from those complaints, the opposition brought the matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and an inquiry was conducted. Of course, you often do not know what you are going to get when you initiate inquiries, and the allegations in respect of the petty officers, no matter how serious, have become subsumed by a whole range of other matters that Mr Gyles has discovered after his exhaustive fashioning of questioning. They go to matters of Defence regulations; appropriate command responses from the officer of the ship to Defence legal, to fleet command and to the most senior echelons of Defence; behaviour onboard ship at sea and in port concerning officers—very senior enlisted personnel of both genders—behaviour by female juniors and the way they were treated in a range of situations that were, frankly, deplorable; and the reaction as that has been progressively made public. Further inquiries are countenanced by Mr Gyles, and of course the government has been appalled at the revelations, such that Minister Smith has ordered there be no less than six separate inquiries convened and carried out on a whole range of matters that derive particularly and solely from the behaviour on board as reported by Mr Gyles QC.

I simply want to say a couple of things on the public record. The whole genesis of this matter arises from the particular courage of three female senior personnel onboard HMAS Success. One was the deputy of the ship—the XO, as I understand it—and the other two were senior women onboard. I do not know whether they were officers or enlisted personnel, but what is important is the way they conducted themselves and the courage they showed. They became aware of developments onboard as affected very young women—18, 19 and 20. The dev­elopments went to inappropriate sexual behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour in terms of allegations of threats, bullying, intimidation, harm and the like. Those three senior female personnel took it upon themselves to alert the commanding officer of the ship, and he then set things in train. So their courage in identifying the problem, acting on behalf of a more junior group of females and setting in train processes should be acknowledged and they should be praised.

In light of that—one must be careful at this stage because there is going to be further inquiry by Mr Gyles—the conclusions of the Senate committee and its recommendations are couched in very strong language. We note that unacceptable behaviour has occurred. We note that there have been myriad inquiries in this area over the last eight or 10 years. We note that there have been reams and reams of recommendations. We note that Navy, the other armed services and Defence generally had acknowledged past mistakes and set in place a whole range of reforms, changes, practices, education, seminars and warnings, and the first time they came under test the whole edifice that had been erected fell down and failed. One almost draws the conclusion that all of the attempts at reform to date have not been worth two bob. Perhaps it is a bit preliminary to make that final conclusion; but, as the chair's draft and recommendation make quite clear, perhaps it is time to say ongoing attempts to teach, to lead, to manage, to educate and to show the proper way to people who are recalcitrant in their behav–iour when members of the armed forces—perhaps we have spent sufficient tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours in going down that path.

Perhaps it might be time to go back to one of the original key recommendations that has given rise to this whole report, and that is that where men and women, seniors and juniors, and officers and enlisted personnel generally in the armed forces are so aggrieved at behaviour that they have received—they regard it as so inappropriate, so unfair or so unjust—there should be established an independent mechanism within Defence whereby person A can go to say: 'I want to complain about this sort of behaviour. It was bad for these reasons. I am harmed in this way.' They could have it properly and independently investigated, and a solution could come forward as opposed to constantly having peer review—constant appeals from Caesar to Caesar about Caesar's behaviour.

Maybe the lesson that should be learnt from the last eight or 10 years is that some forms of behaviour are so unacceptable and have such untoward consequences that it is time to say we are going to change. We are going to have an independent unit—by all means within Defence—authorised by statute whereby young boys and young girls who from time to time receive what he says politely is 'inappropriate treatment' can have those treatments investigated. They are protected. They are not transferred. They are not punished. They are not put into another position. They are not put into another unit. An officer is not brought in to supervise their work on a regular basis. It happens in every major corporation in this country. It happens in the police forces, the fire brigades and the country fire brigades. When people make complaints they can have them independently investigated, the complaints upheld or dismissed and a remedy imposed. It is not an unreasonable request.

It is even more reasonable when the people who are making the complaints are those we choose to send to Afghanistan or Iraq, in the middle of the desert, where they all face the risk of being blown up or killed. That is a necessary consequence of joining the armed forces and going on active services. You choose to put your life in harm's way. If you choose to do that—and we do not have conscription in this country—it is not unreasonable that simple, normal standards of personal behaviour that everyone in this place, everyone who is a member of a trade union and everyone who works for a major company expects are observed and that investigation of complaints can be made.

In this report, the committee chair has carefully couched her language, but maybe it is time to return to one of the original recommendations and have a proper, serious, independent investigative unit. Mr Gyles will look at that in due course. I am sure the committee will make him aware of its views and feelings, having some corporate know­ledge of this. But I think it is time to put that recommendation on the table. We have now had many, many ministers and many assistant ministers in successive govern­ments over 10 years—and still we have the sorts of problems that 17-, 18- and 19-year-old boys and girls should not have to countenance and, when they do occur, should be remedied as a matter of urgency. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.