Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing my previous contribution, quoting from a letter received from a member of the Defence community:

The Bill gives statutory recognition which in effect does little to enhance the perceptions of a decreasing control by the chain of command.

Little consultation has been undertaken by DL in this process and little thought has been given to the mechanics. For example, the proposed section 110ZA(2) states that CDF (Chief of Defence Force) is to appoint the DDCS (Directorate of Defence Counsel Services) Director.

Firstly is it appropriate that the head of the chain of command should be the one appointing the body whose sole purpose is to assist the member, usually as a result of discipline decisions by the chain of command?

Currently the Director is a policy officer on rotation from DL (Defence Legal) for a period of 3 years.

This is problematic in that once their rotation is completed, they go back into Defence Legal and report through the same chain of command that they have been supposedly been battling against on behalf of the ADF accused members.

This has created significant difficulties in moving DDCS forward in both its roles and functions.

This year, however, a (RLO Reserve Legal Officer) on CFTS is in the role which has brought the first independent Director, allowing significant changes in policy and procedures to allow the Directorate to become effectively a legal aide office for the ADF members.

Significant concern has to be raised as to what will occur in 2016 unless the current Director is extended, or another independent RLO is appointed.

The functions in the proposed section 110ZB should be expanded to include the independent provision of legal assistance for all ADF members regardless of whether it is required as a result of discipline or administrative decisions by command.

Currently Navy has 3 independent personnel billets around Australia that solely looks after the member's interests. They report directly to DDCS.

As Army and Air Force are reluctant to enter into this arrangement, DDCS should be tasked with being the independent provider of legal assistance.

Currently command legal officers arrange the provision of legal assistance for members which is obviously a major conflict.

This can result in a number of issues depending on the Service—for example Air Force reluctant to engage a non Air Force RLO for a member despite the members request.

I would respectfully suggest that significant consultation needs to be undertaken in relation to this aspect of the Bill and/or it being referred off to a Committee.

The opportunity to create a statutorily independent DDCS (Directorate of Defence Counsel Services) for the benefit of all ADF members should not be lost.

I hope that the minister and government will listen carefully to the concerns I have raised with this legislation. The key question is: is the Director of Defence Counsel Services truly independent and serving in the best interests of the troops? Our military justice system is all about justice and fairness. I remind this government: how can you have military leaders and politicians talking about justice and fairness when you have still denied a fair wage rise to the men and women of our Defence Force? You must deliver an extra one per cent pay rise and you must back pay our troops from November last year.

I pray to God that the troops we have in the Middle East stay safe. I make this simple plea: bring them home. We have the wrong policy in the Middle East. We could bring our troops home from the Middle East and save $750 million a year or $3 billion over the forward estimates. It is dumb, so dumb, to risk our diggers' lives in Iraq when the US has made a half-hearted commitment with only 3,000 troops in the recognition that it is a lost cause in Iraq now. Any clear-thinking person knows that the current Iraqi army will turn on our diggers and betray them to the ISIS enemy in a heartbeat. If, as Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings suggests, Australian troops' role is upgraded from 'advise and assist' to 'advise, assist and accompany' it is a recipe for disaster.

After my briefing with the Australian Kurdish lobby last week and many conversations with Australian veterans who have previously fought in the Middle East, it is clear that the best future for the Iraqi people is for the country to split into 3 autonomous regions controlled by the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. There are 40 million Kurds living in various countries in the Middle East. They are the only fighters on the ground who are able to take on the brutes in Islamic State and they do not drop their weapons and do a runner. The Kurdish people have a culture and value system that is similar to Australians'. Unlike the majority of cultures in the Middle East, the Kurds value human, women's and animal rights. They also support a democratic federal system of government similar to Australia's, which is made up of autonomous regional governments.

If Mr Abbott and his government fail to bring our soldiers home soon and listen to the advice of Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings, who wants the diggers' role upgraded from 'advise and assist' to 'advise, assist and accompany', then they had better be ready for questioning. Will you negotiate if ISIS captures any of our diggers? How will our military justice system deal with that scenario? Would it authorise cash payments to terrorists to secure the safe release of our Australian diggers?

I am aware of a system that the military has whereby our troops are authorised to give cash payments to foreign nationals. It is called tactical payments. After receiving a heads-up from our young diggers, I questioned our senior ADF officers during the recent Senate estimates hearings about the practice of our troops paying large sums of Australian cash to Afghan and Iraqi nationals. As the official parliamentary record shows, this practice was confirmed to me by senior officers in charge of our ADF, who described the policy of paying large sums of cash to Afghan and Iraqi civilians as 'tactical payments'.

However, the official record also shows those in charge of our military were very reluctant to release any further information. Rear Admiral Griggs told me in relation to tactical payments authorised by the Australian government: 'There will be elements of that which we will not be able to answer.' My response is: why not? That cash was Australian taxpayers' money. It still comes with a strict level of accountability. There should be no cover-up. My genuine fear was that, if this scheme was not properly administered, then the Australian government could have been guilty of giving cash to the Taliban and other enemies, and funding their fight against our own people.

With the knowledge that our government officials, perhaps working with our military, could have been involved in paying off or bribing people smugglers—who are not only international criminals, murders and rapists but clearly also enemies of Australia—I am even more determined to find out the truth of this matter and to hold this government to account.

I have questions on notice regarding the full details of our military's tactical cash payments and I would like them to be answered. I expect the government to cover them up; however, they are now getting to the 28-day period from estimates, and I would like my questions answered. As I said to Rear Admiral Griggs on 1 June, I want to know: who it was paid to; where it was paid to; the dates, times and locations; how much all up we have spent over the last 12 years paying this money; and whether or not that information has been paid for, for counterintelligence, within that domain.

With our Prime Minister and senior Liberal ministers dodging questions about cash payments to people smugglers, it is reasonable to ask: were tactical cash payments made to bribe our enemies in the Middle East? Are cash payments to people smugglers part of our military's tactical payment scheme? How does the current military justice system deal with the rights of diggers who, on behalf of this government, may be part of a cash payment scheme which a future royal commission may determine to be illegal? And exactly where do our soldiers stand on these illegal payments? Those are the answers I am looking for. I want to make sure that it is not our soldiers who are going to be thrown behind bars.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.