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

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide Final Report demonstrates that successive governments have failed to support service personnel and their families; and

(b) calls on the Government to urgently publish a comprehensive timeline outlining the implementation of all recommendations of the final report, ensuring that reforms for service personnel and their families are carried out in a timely and effective manner.

I don't think anyone in Australia would disagree with the first part of my motion today. Governments have been failing our veterans for decades. Not only have they failed our veterans; they have failed their families. Over the last 40 years, nearly 60 reports and 750 recommendations have been largely ignored, and Defence was still refusing to hand over documents to the royal commission whilst it was ongoing.

The work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide must be a game changer. Defence and the government cannot be allowed to cherrypick the recommendations that work for them. All the recommendations need to be carefully examined and implemented as soon as possible. If Minister Keogh and Minister Marles are serious about making real change for our veterans, then they need urgently to get on with publishing a timeline for the recommendations. Here's a tip—because you could start with this tomorrow: I would start with the 18 recommendations that go straight to the conduct and operation of the military justice system, the Inspector-General of Australian Defence Force, the IGADF. Minister Marles knows all about the IGADF; he's been sitting on a report that was delivered to him six months ago—three months to write a report and six months to sit on it.

The military justice system is there to make sure that veterans placed under investigation are treated fairly. In other words, it's there to make sure veterans get justice. But the military justice system has failed to deliver justice for veterans since it started over 20 years ago. Rather than delivering justice and looking after our serving men and women, the chain of command has misused and abused the legal processes to target veterans, and the IGADF signed off on those abuses, often while still reviewing cases. It was only after lawyers, often acting pro bono, managed to have the IGADF reviews reviewed that the cases were found to be an abuse of process and an attack on our veterans. Recommendation 30 from the royal commission's final report goes straight to the heart of this, naming their weaponisation of the military justice system and noting that serving personnel were incorrectly charged and that, when a defending officer made representations to get the charges dropped, they themselves were persecuted, destroying their careers.

Here are just a couple of recent examples. A soldier—let's call him Tom—had completed multiple combat tours in the Middle East. Tom put in a complaint about his chain of command. An inquiry officer was appointed, but, instead of holding senior officers to account, the inquiry officer exonerated the chain of command, made adverse findings against Tom and referred his case to the IGADF for review. In other words, they referred it to their mates—because that's how it works—for a review. Would you believe—yes, sadly, I do—that the IGADF backed in the inquiry officer's findings and upheld the adverse findings against Tom? After years of fighting this, Tom retained the services of Dr Kolomeitz and went back to the IGADF and demanded an independent review of the original review. The IGADF ignored Dr Kolomeitz's repeated calls for another look at Tom's case, so Dr Kolomeitz was forced to call them out in the media to get their attention. Finally, the IGADF looked more closely at Tom's case and came back and said, 'Yes, the original findings were terribly wrong.' Tom received a pathetically small amount of money, nothing that would fix the torment and metal health impacts he has had to endure.

Let me give you another example. Another multiple-tour combat veteran—let's call him Fred—left the Army, went to the Army Reserve and became a tactical police officer. Fred was subjected to an ongoing weaponised administration process by his chain of command. When Fred went to the IGADF, they did nothing, but when the chain of command found out they took more adverse actions against Fred. The adverse actions they can take include everything from a note on your personnel file to rank determination and losses in pay. Fred also went and found Dr Kolomeitz, who had each action overturned, but then—wait for it—the chain of command took away Fred's rank. It just keeps getting better! Fred only found out after looking up his personnel file on the Army's computer system. Dr Kolomeitz and Fred went back to the Army again and questioned this decision. Army was made to give him back his rank. They handed Fred his rank slide with one hand and a moment later handed him his termination of service. This is how we deal with whistleblowers in the military: we brick them, do whatever we can, give them one thing and then take the other until we've worn them down to nothing. That's what the military justice abuse system, as I like to call it, does to our military members, especially those of lower rank.

Dr Kolomeitz took this up. He took it as far as the Army headquarters, but instead of looking at the chain of command—once again, never look at the chain of command, God forbid!—and their clearly inappropriate behaviour in Fred's case, they appointed an inquiry officer to look at what had happened but excluded putting the conduct of any individual in the frame. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the military justice system know all about this case and still have done nothing. Three years at a royal commission—they should have spent more time working on this case rather than trying to intimidate me at the royal commission and bringing in the heavy hitters, because that is what they are about. They are disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

Dr Kolomeitz, like other lawyers out there, has dealt with soldiers who were subjected to acts of indecency. When they reported this, investigations were either not forthcoming or bungled. We're not just talking about one or two here; there are hundreds of them. Many others are aware of serving members who have committed sexual assault, including rape, who are still serving. I was aware when I went through the 33 folders of defence abuse, which were just startlingly disgraceful, and saw the names in there that I had known of those people when I was serving and before I got out. Do you know what I find more distressing than anything? It's that simply nothing came out of all of that—Dr Gary Rumble 's report or anything like that. I found out that those senior command officers never asked to see those 33 folders of defence abuse. They didn't want to see them because they didn't want to fix it, and I think that says it all. Have any of them lost pay, rank, anything else or their careers? No, absolutely not.

Gary Rumble's review in 2006 had a list of recommendations that would have fixed any issues, but, like everything else, the report was ignored. Recommendation 44 was also directed at the IGADF. It suggests the military justice system should develop a workforce plan that includes a review of necessary skills, expertise and qualifications. Wow! Imagine making these decisions on veterans' lives and you don't have qualifications. What a shameful act! It absolutely blows me away. How can a professional organisation not already have a plan to make sure that people who are investigating are properly qualified? You wonder why you have problems with the military justice system and its abuse.

The next recommendation, No. 45, should be at the top of Minister Marles' to-do list. It says that the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force should improve the transparency and accountability of their office—imagine that our own legal system in Defence can't be transparent and accountable; it's frightening that's where we've got to—by making clear its standard operating procedures and setting key performance indicators related to the timeliness of assessments. In other words, they need to give veterans some idea of how long a review or inquiry will take, because that will determine whether or not it will tip a veteran over the edge, and not just leave them in limbo, in some cases for months and years, on their decision-making. Again, you would think this would be an obvious thing to fix, especially for an organisation that is supposed to mete out justice. But I don't think that is the IGADF's main role. I think its main purpose is to cover up for senior command. Well, no more; this has to stop. The fact that the royal commissioners targeted 18 of their recommendations at the military justice system should be enough of a wake-up call. I'd say the military justice system is cooked. It is cooked; it is finished. It's over.

On Monday, when the final report was tabled, Defence Minister Marles said:

We have been working to deliver real change each and every day.

He also said:

We will now work through the recommendations in a timely and methodical matter.

That's government spin, you veterans, for saying that they'll get around to it. Just so you know, that's the normal spin up here. That's how it works. You would think that they would have had some sort of time line. They were given an interim report. They had people sitting in during the royal commission. They would have been picking up on this. You have had to ask: what have we been paying these people for, whether they are from DVA or Defence, to sit in at every one of these public royal commission meetings, and they haven't got a timeline? I find that quite disgraceful, to be honest. It's not that difficult. You've got 122 recommendations. All that stuff came out during the royal commission. So, as much as I'd like to give you veterans some hope before the weekend, I'm just not going to do that, because I can't.

It's not good enough. The government, Minister Marles and Minister Keogh, like I said, have been quite aware of this report coming. It has come to the point where, though I should not have to, I am going to put forward a motion to push them along. They should have been ready with some sort of timeline. Instead of doing that, Minister Marles released his response to the Brereton inquiry, stripping some senior command of the citations but not touching the generals. Once again, the top brass gets off the hook. If Minister Marles and Minister Keogh really meant all those nice things they said in the meeting with the veteran community on Monday, then they will get on with publishing that timeline and reassuring the veteran community that they are serious about honouring their service and caring for our veterans.

I do notice, so you veterans know about the spin stuff, that the government has tried to change my motion, just so we're all very aware of that. I had called on the government to:

… urgently publish a comprehensive timeline outlining the implementation of all recommendations of the final report, ensuring that reforms for service personnel and their families are carried out in a timely and effective manner.

To get the government of Australia to vote for this motion, they have changed that and watered it down. This is what they put. They need these words so they look pretty. The amended motion:

… calls on the Government to urgently work towards publicly releasing its response to all recommendations of the Final Report, to ensure that the recommended reforms aimed at supporting service personnel and their families can be implemented in a timely and effective manner.

So I would just say to you, veterans: take a deep breath. I can assure you that, if you thought the fight was on during the royal commission, the fight begins today. The fight begins today for justice for you. And it's going to be a really rocky road.

I don't think it has been helpful that with all the emotional stuff of putting that royal commission out on Monday—all that emotional stuff that they're still trying to deal with a couple of days later—you come out and the best thing you can do is say, 'Hey, we've got nine people we're going to take citations off when it comes to the alleged war crimes.' Jesus, that was a nice slap in the face! Thanks for coming! And the veterans are going: 'How come? What's happened to the generals?' There's no responsibility for them either. This is not helpful.

I have to ask why you would have kept this thing for four years to look at it, and you released it. Which idiot decided to release that today? Do you know how harmful that has been today? You couldn't wait till the next sitting? Seriously, you just don't get it. This is what bothers me more than anything. You would never have pulled an act like that today. That is shameful. If I lose one veteran's life over the weekend because of this, I expect the resignation of your defence minister. What a stupid thing to do today. How hurtful!

Don't worry, the generals and the top end have done you over. They've been doing you over for years. We're going to do you and throw you diggers under the bus with the alleged war crimes as well and hold none of them big boys accountable. Straight across their face—here we go! She's on—honestly! She starts Monday. It all starts Monday. You'll realise on Monday why. It's coming at you, and I'm coming at you. The gloves are off. It's going to be a fight from hell, but it is a fight I'm not moving from. I won't move today, and I won't move tomorrow. For you veterans out there, some of us in this chamber have your back. Don't you forget that. Hold tight, because we have you.

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

On behalf of the Greens, I join with Senator Lambie in supporting this motion. I want, at the outset, to acknowledge Senator Lambie's ongoing work and courage in this space. You heard just some of it in that contribution. This isn't a moment in time. Anyone who had been watching the work to establish the royal commission and then the work since the royal commission couldn't help but acknowledge Senator Lambie's courage and her commitment in this space, and I just want to reflect that at the commencement of my contribution. Of course, Senator Lambie is not working in a vacuum. The mums and dads, the family members, the partners and the parents have been extraordinary too. I could start a list, but I won't. You know who you are, and I'm enormously grateful to you. I don't know how they keep doing it in circumstances of personal and family loss, like they have, but on my part there's utter respect—that's what they have.

I think we need to find a proper amount of time to go through the 122 recommendations and to really tease out what's required in response to the royal commission. I don't pretend the contribution I'm going to make now is in any way a complete response, or that it even pretends to be a complete response, to the royal commission, but I'll say in relation to the royal commission that the chair and the two commissioners, between them, behaved with incredible dignity and generosity. They gave Defence and the government, the ministers, incredible amounts of procedural fairness. It was procedural fairness that I don't think I could have given them, given what I'd heard from veterans and communities—given what I'd heard about the disrespect that had been shown to veterans; given what I'd heard about the brutal, dehumanising process that so many veterans had gone through, sometimes in service but then, for many of them, aggravated once they'd left service. But the chair and the two commissioners, to their eternal credit, provided that procedural fairness. They provided a platform of dignity so that their 122 recommendations are on an incredibly solid foundation.

There is just one recommendation that I want to talk about in this contribution, and it's the final recommendation, recommendation 122 in the report. That's because recommendation 122 in the report reflects what the commissioners heard. They'd heard about the dozens and dozens of reports that previously had been done where nothing changed. They'd heard about the hundreds of recommendations—in fact thousands of recommendations, if you add them all up—that had been made where nothing had changed. That's because Defence is like 'the empire that strikes back'. Whenever you think you've had a win against it, the machine rolls on. The empire rolls on and just gobbles up or steamrolls its opponents. It just rolls over any dissidents like a sort of multibillion dollar monster. I can't think of a minister who has tried to stand up to it in any effective way, but if any had they would have been rolled over as well. In particular, veterans, injured veterans and people inside the service who are trying to make change just get steamrolled by the empire as it strikes back. Recommendation 122 recognises that. It says that this report and these recommendations are only as good as the political will, the power and the processes that are put in place to actually implement them this time. It is not just saying you care, not just acknowledging the veterans' pain but putting in place some kind of independent statutory body to oversee and ensure politicians are held to account, the government is held to account, this place is held to account—Senator Lambie and I and all of us are held to account—and senior leadership in Defence are held to account so that we actually implement the other 121 recommendations.

What the government could do if it wanted to build a bridge with veterans would be to say today—it could have said it on Monday, when the report was released, but it could say it today or first thing next week—that the government will commit to implementing recommendation 122 in full. It will establish this independent body, with independent statutory power, to make sure this time that the report doesn't just gather dust, that the recommendations are implemented. If they committed to that early next week, that would play a big part in building a bridge to veterans so that they felt they had some comfort, felt they had some kind of assurance that this time something would change. And I'd urge them to do that. If they did that—I can't speak for Senator Lambie, but I'll say for our party—we will acknowledge and respect that from the government, because it'll show an intent to actually implement it this time.

In closing, I can't help but endorse Senator Lambie's observation that in the same week that we get the veterans royal commission handed down, and veterans feel that they might be being listened to and might be being respected and may actually be at the centre of this place's considerations, the government chooses to close and shut down the Brereton response and to bring all of that back for veterans—in the very same week. Veterans feel that this is another incident where the leadership has got off scot-free, that there's zero accountability for the leadership. That's what the government's shutting down of the Brereton response says. It says that there's zero accountability for leadership; they're all just going to get off scot-free, keep their medals, keep their promotions, keep their pensions—walk free—in the same week. How did they think that was a decent response? It's so obviously wrong.

So, when Senator Lambie makes her impassioned contribution at the end, from her perspective as a veteran, how could the government have not realised that that would be the response, not just from Senator Lambie but from so many veterans? It's so wrong, so disrespectful. But I say this to the government: build a bridge. Show that you actually get it this time, and you can do that by coming in on Monday morning next week and saying you'll implement recommendation 122, and that'll be the pathway to the other 121.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: 'Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.' Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel.

Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It's a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers' alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top.

Let's keep going with the ADF veteran's words: 'Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.'

Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: 'Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.'

He goes on: 'Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates' actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes.

'This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they've learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public's outrage over ADF's bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.'

That's the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what's happened. His finished there with: 'Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.' Why should he care—he is out? I'll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That's why this is so important.

This affects culture, which is our ADF's secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I'm not going to talk at length about that; I've talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We've learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn't expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it's better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled.

But, then again, we've now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence's eyes, what are 'outstanding outcomes'? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying:

Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell.

Then I asked her:

Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell 's command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them?

I didn't get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with:

Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability.

The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with:

The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined.

That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister:

Why are Defence's most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel's advice?

I didn't get a satisfactory answer. My final question began:

Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be 'in action', meaning in direct contact with an enemy—

Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement—

yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action.

I asked her:

Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award?

Why indeed! I've asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue.

We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie's motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie's fine motion, which calls on the government to 'urgently publish' a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to 'urgently work towards' this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well.

I'll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I've heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I've heard it from officers. I've heard it from veterans. I've heard it from enlisted ranks. We've been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It's unravelling, yet it's the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I'm disappointed to see that the senior brass don't seem to understand it.

Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I'm sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that's why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I flag at the outset that I will be moving an amendment as circulated. I would like to acknowledge all of the speakers in the debate so far on what is a very serious topic. The rate of veteran suicide in Australia is a national tragedy, and that's why Labor supported the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide when we were in opposition.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has confirmed some 1,677 known cases of suicide among serving and ex-serving personnel between 1997 and 2021. Now, three years and hundreds of submissions later, the final report of the royal commission has been delivered to the government and tabled in the parliament. The report is an important body of work which marks the culmination of the most significant and comprehensive inquiry conducted into suicide and suicidality in the defence and veteran communities. The report is comprehensive. It is some seven volumes long, containing more than 3,100 pages and 122 recommendations. We're already putting in the work to properly understand and consider the recommendations and the detail behind them.

In August 2022, the interim report of the royal commission was delivered to government, and we took swift action on all of its recommendations. In delivering the government response to the interim report, on 26 August 2022, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs delivered an apology. Here is what he said:

It is a great tragedy that the Australian Government, successive Australian Governments, have failed those who have served our nation.

Governments have also failed the families of those people, families who have carried a heavy burden of their own through the pain and suffering they have experienced.

…   …   …

Unfortunately, in some cases, the policies, processes and cultures that have evolved in Defence and DVA over time have been counterproductive, causing distress to our Defence and Veteran communities.

The Royal Commission's Interim Report is replete with examples.

It is clear that things are not right.

On behalf of the Australian Government, I say, sorry.

The government will now consider the final report and its recommendations and respond in due course after appropriate consideration. The government received this report on Monday. The relevant ministers are working through that now so that we can respond as quickly as we can to all of these recommendations so that the entire community across Australia and, of course, serving personnel, veterans and families can have clarity around what we will be doing in response to this royal commission to improve the lives of people currently serving, as well as those that have served and their families.

Thank you to everyone who helped campaign for and who contributed to the royal commission for their bravery in sharing their often harrowing stories about their own experience in service. I also thank those who have given a voice to loved ones no longer able to share their story. Over the course of this inquiry, I personally had the opportunity to meet a small number of family members of veterans who had taken their lives. I know the incredible work that they undertook to put this issue on the agenda and to campaign for better treatment of our veterans and their families. On a personal level, I thank those people as well. The government also thanks the commissioners for a thorough and compassionate inquiry.

All serving and ex-serving ADF personnel and their families should know that, if they need support, they can contact Open Arms for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on 1800011046 or, of course, they can visit the Open Arms website, www.openarms.gov.au.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Watt be agreed to. As it's after 4:30 pm, the division will be deferred to a time that is suitable for the Senate, probably on Monday.

Debate adjourned.