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.