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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that the refusal to release the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review:

(i) undermines the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide,

(ii) perpetuates an environment of secrecy and evasion, and

(iii) represents a failure of the government to uphold the principles of accountability and transparency which are essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring the well-being of our defence community; and

(b) calls on the Minister for Defence to immediately release the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review.

The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, the IGADF, was set up 20 years ago to promote trust and justice in the Australian Defence Force. I hate to have to break this to the Minister for Defence—wakey, wakey!—and to the head of the IGADF, the inspector-general, Mr Gaynor: you have utterly failed every veteran who has ever served. There is no trust that the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force does anything but drive veterans into an early grave.

The veteran community has zero confidence that the IGADF does the job of oversighting military justice, even with the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force's military justice audits of Australian Defence Force units. Abuse of power, especially at the commanding officer level—as noted in the royal commission report—is absolutely rife. The delay in finalising the inquiry of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force into the military justice cases inflames the moral injury suffered by veterans, because justice delayed is justice denied.

When veterans take Defence to civilian courts, Defence fights tooth and nail, like a dog, and often uses the results of Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force inquiries, even though so many are found to be defective and flawed. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force is responsible for making sure that inquiry officers are trained in procedural fairness, but we still see breaches of the most fundamental principles of procedural fairness within Defence itself—like not giving people a fair hearing, relying on irrelevant evidence and, on the other hand, ignoring relevant evidence. As far as most veterans are concerned, the loyalties of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force are to Defence, not to the diggers that the body was set up to protect. What a joke!

Regardless of the fact that the head of Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, the inspector himself, calls himself Mr Gaynor—he uses 'Mr' on all correspondence—let's be quite clear about this: Mr Gaynor was a brigadier, and the perception remains that he is beholden to the chain of command. And, by God, he is—he is! The track record of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force just confirms this perception for most veterans.

It is more than clear to me that the organisation that has the job of providing oversight on military justice has absolutely no oversight of itself—absolutely none. Going to the Federal Court for a review of IGADF decisions made against veterans is expensive and risky, and people know Defence will fight hard and then hit the veteran with the legal costs. That's because they have no shame. Even after a royal commission, they have no shame. One example of Defence's behaviour in the Federal Court is a case in which the judge was about to make an adverse finding against Defence, so Defence settled at the last minute to avoid the finding. It was not because it was morally the right thing to do by the digger—oh no. This was a case in which the member was found not guilty at court martial, but his unit took administrative action against him to kick him out anyway. The inspector-general thought that was okay, though. Of course he would! The federal government was about to think differently, and it would have been on the public record. But, in typical cover-ups, Defence are sneaky little buggers who get you to sign a nondisclosure agreement before you get a payout. They run you into the ground, they wear you out, and then they get you to sign a nondisclosure agreement before they pay you anything, so that you don't get to speak about it. This is the absolute filth that is taking out veterans! And the filth continues three years after a royal commission!

Veterans, once they are worn down, just give up. They give up because there is nothing left to fight with. On so many occasions, if the person does keep fighting, Defence settles before the matter goes to trial. God forbid their performance was out in the public arena—they wouldn't want that—because their performances is about a D-minus.

There is way too much secrecy surrounding the inspector-general's inquiries, and this just adds to the perception that the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force is above the law. And, my God, do they think they are above the law—oh yeah! That's the culture that is taking out veterans. And it's not just the IGADF; it is the whole top chain of command. Yet I haven't seen one sacking—not one sacking. Do you know why, Madam Acting Deputy President Bilyk? Because your minister doesn't have what it takes to get rid of them and clean them out. You'll never get culture change in this area until you clean them out, but Minister Marles is not up to the job—never was, never will be.

It doesn't help, either, that the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has never been subjected to any sort of proper review or inquiry—in 20 years, not ever. Adding insult to moral injury is Minister Marles's stubborn refusal to publicly release Justice Duncan Kerr's review into the military justice system. A lengthy review is a way to avoid taking action. That's right: the government of the day is sitting on that review because it doesn't want to deal with the crap that's in it. It must be bad. Three months to write it, six months to sit on it, three years at a royal commission, and the government doesn't have the courage to release the review. What an unbelievable slap in the face to these veterans out there retelling their stories, showing courage to come forward, and your government won't release the review. Why not? Why not? They gave it their best for three years. They all came forward. They all came forward and continued to show the courage that they showed on the battlefield, but you don't want to show the courage to tackle this.

The inspector-general's inquiry into the military justice arrangements for dealing with sexual misconduct—it gets better. This report was initiated in July 2021 and finalised in December 2021—five months—yet, more than three years later, the report and its recommendations remain under review by the Department of Defence. Didn't we just put a new general in? Didn't you just pay for another position—more top officers at the top? What is she doing? Abuse and sexual abuse were highlighted; yet Defence has nothing to say about it? Three years later, it doesn't want to make a remark on its filth? There are countless stories of cover-up. We've heard them for three years—cover-up after cover-up after cover-up—yet Minister Marles seems committed to kicking our veterans to the kerb while he continues this toxic cover-up of culture.

Justice Kerr's review was meant to give those veterans some trust in the government that sent them to war to put their lives on the line. Instil trust back into them. Release that report and take action. Make people pay for this. I don't want to see another robodebt, where nothing is going to happen to those people up the top. Veterans want actions. They want compensation. And they're not talking about money; they want people to be held responsible. It is not that difficult. I am begging you: please, release that report. No more hiding, because it is killing veterans. Did you not hear the last three years? That report must be released. 'There's nothing to fix here'—just release the report.

And get ready, Inspector-General, because he's failed to do the job. Don't go and do what you do with the rest of them and give him a medal. Get rid of him and put someone in there that can do the job, because your changing culture starts with him. If you want to change culture, you have to start there and you have to show by example you are not putting up with this brutality that is happening to veterans anymore. It has gone far enough, so I'm asking the government to show some courage. I'm asking you to be brave. Release that report. Release it today.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The women and men of the Australian Defence Force who wear and have worn the nation's uniform are the finest of Australians. We owe them eternal gratitude for the service they give and have given. They have given that service in an environment where much is expected of them. Much is expected of them in the way they defend Australia and defend Australian values and interests, and much is expected in the way they conduct themselves in their operations. Senator Lambie, we pay tribute to your service in the Australian Defence Force and acknowledge the passionate advocacy you have continuously brought to this Senate for the veterans of Australia and for their families and loved ones.

The work of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are critically important pieces of work and analysis in relation to the conduct and operations of our Defence Force and the support and services given to our veterans. Both are complex areas, and both have rightly been the subject of careful, thoughtful scrutiny. The opposition concurs with Senator Lambie that it is important that transparency be given over the work of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the review undertaken. We agree that there ought to be that degree of public transparency that enables public accountability to occur. For that reason, on the broad principles, we agree with Senator Lambie and will support her in the intent behind her motion.

I have circulated some amendments to that motion that seek to address two particular issues of concern the opposition has. The first is that, whilst absolutely recognising the connectivity for Australian veterans and their families between some of the work of the IGADF and of the royal commission, we don't believe one should be used to reflect upon the other. So we propose not to support—and propose an amendment to remove—the statement that suggests that the status of the IGADF report undermines the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We understand why both are critically important to our veteran community and we want to ensure that the veteran community has confidence in relation to both. But we do not wish to draw the linkage or make prejudicial statements in relation to one or the other of these important pieces of work.

The other is in relation to Senator Lambie's call for the immediate release of the IGADF report. We have supported Senator Lambie in calling for its release. We continue to support the call for its release. We have acknowledged and recognised that the government have said they are committed to its release but are working through the processes for its release. We respect the difficulty for the government, given the gravity of the circumstances and issues being dealt with, in ensuring that the report is released with appropriate consideration of its content and the manner in which it is released.

But we believe the government needs to give certainty to this Senate and, more importantly, to Australian veterans and serving Australian personnel about when it's going to come to an end—when it's going to happen. So we propose an amendment to substitute the word 'immediately' for the words 'to commit to a firm timeframe to'. We respect the work of government to ensure that the report is properly released, but they can't just keep saying, 'Trust us; we'll get to it at some point.' There needs to be certainty about when that is.

The opposition is seeking to treat this responsibly and carefully, given the sensitivity of the issues, and to give the government the benefit of the doubt about the work to be done for the release of this report. We are not saying it must happen here, now, today; we are saying, very clearly, the government must come clean and be upfront with Australian veterans and the defence community about when and how it is going to happen. Enough of saying 'some day'; it's time to say which day. Enough of saying 'some time'; it's time to say precisely when. It's time to give that certainty and that confidence to our veterans and our defence community.

I seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name on behalf of the coalition together.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit paragraph (a)(i).

Paragraph (b), omit "immediately", substitute "commit to a firm timeframe to".

They are intended to reflect and deliver upon the spirit, intent and content of the motion Senator Lambie has brought to this chamber and to acknowledge the sensitivities and the work the government is undertaking. We hope that, with that, we can see a motion pass this Senate that makes clear the Senate's intent that this report should be released. It gives the government the clear message they should say precisely when and how it will be released, to end the doubt, and makes it possible for all stakeholders interested in this matter, as well as for this Senate, to hold the government to account in relation to the steps it takes not just in response to the royal commission but also in response to the work of the IGADF.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I acknowledge and respect the contribution from Senator Lambie. I heard her contribution on radio on this issue previously. Her sincerity is undoubted. It would be good to get a resolution on this, to expedite matters. I indicate that the government will support the amendment moved by the opposition. We ask that paragraphs (a) and (b) be put separately; we will be voting a different way on (a) and (b). I now propose to close this debate.

If I may, Senator Shoebridge, your party has spent days now trying not to get to Help to Buy. We would like a vote on that. I propose to seek to close this debate so that the Senate can do what Senator Lambie has said, which is to make its position clear to the government of the day; I understand that.

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

I have a short contribution that will be quicker than a division.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, you don't have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Senator Shoebridge, if you could give me a guarantee you'd be two minutes that would be fine, but my experience so far has been that that is not the case. If you would like to make a statement by leave for two minutes, I'll sit down and then I'll close the debate.

He hasn't said that to me. Senator Hanson-Young, I trust you, but—

I just asked you.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. It doesn't appear that he's willing to make—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, can you resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After fast consideration, we'll take your two-minute statement option.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, you have the call for two minutes.

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

We're here because, once again, Defence has failed to provide anything like transparency. Indeed, one of the reasons why Senator Lambie has moved this motion—which was about to be supported by every other party in this chamber apart from the government—is Defence and this government have form, and the previous government had form as well. Time and time again, even in budget estimates, we're asking for basic information and basic transparency. The existence of the director-general is a reason given to refuse to provide answers. We ask for basic information about defence tragedies and defence accidents such as the crash of a Taipan helicopter in Jervis Bay last year.

We've been asking for transparency on that for a year and a half, and the answer we repeatedly get from the government is, 'We're not going to tell you, because this is off to inquiry with the Inspector-General.' The Inspector-General, of course, comes from the Defence Force and is seen to be very culturally attuned to them. Nobody below a one-star rank in the Defence Force genuinely believes that it provides the independent oversight that was promised. It was set up as an administrative office by a former CDF and from that moment on was treated with suspicion by those who wanted transparency in the space. We can't understand why the government won't introduce it immediately. We can't understand why they won't provide it to veterans. We can't understand why the government last week did what it did in trying to muddy the waters for the veterans royal commission. We can't understand their approach to ignoring the demands for veterans, and we will be supporting this motion unamended.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of two minutes?

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

Under two minutes.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

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

No more hiding—that's what we want. We want no more hiding from the Department of Defence, as Senator Lambie has just said. The hiding is killing enlisted people and killing veterans. We've got to stop the hiding. I support Senator Lambie. One Nation supports Senator Lambie's motion. I don't need to say much more, because yesterday I spoke at length about the partial release of documents that we have been chasing for years now about the Taipan helicopter. Had we gotten those documents and had Defence analysed them, it could well have saved four lives that were tragically lost in the Whitsundays. We asked for the release of documents. After years, we got a redacted executive summary of a report. There were no correspondence, inquiries or other documents—

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

And it shows systemic failure.

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

And it shows systemic failure. Thank you for those words. It shows a rot from the top. The most important strategic weapon we have in our Australian Defence Force is its culture, and it is being destroyed. We need to end the hiding. I support Senator Lambie's motion.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe you are seeking leave for a statement, Senator David Pocock?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a two-minute statement—hopefully less.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also stand in support of the motion and thank Senator Lambie for her advocacy on behalf of the Defence and veteran communities. What Senator Lambie is asking for is simple transparency over the IGADF 20-year report. The report was due to be released in March, six months ago now, and we're seeing this pattern from the government of sitting on reports or responses to reports and not releasing them. The ANAO has refused to conduct an audit on the IGADF until after considering the IGADF 20-year review, which the government is yet to release. We're talking about an office that hasn't been audited since it was established 20 years ago. You have to start to ask the questions. What is the government hiding? Senator Lambie has used every mechanism available to try and get transparency around the 20-year review. Veterans deserve transparency. Our Defence community deserves transparency. It's time for the government to deliver on the promise for greater accountability and transparency and to do what's right for communities that sacrifice so much for our country.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for their cooperation on this, including you, Senator Shoebridge. In order to expedite this, I move:

That the question be now put.

I think that would be the question on Senator Birmingham's amendments.

Question agreed to.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair now is that the amendments by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Now, the question before the chair is that the original motion as amended be agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that they be put separately.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the reminder. At the request of the government, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the motion will be considered separately. The question now is that the original motion as amended at paragraph (a) be agreed to. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I think the amendment has already been carried. This is simply in relation to paragraph (a), as amended. I can indicate the government is voting no on that paragraph, and we ask that our opposition be recorded. If Senator Lambie wishes, we're happy to give her leave to record her opposition on the amendments, which was the previous vote, or she can recommit—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Lambie would like a division on the amendment, she has a right to ask for that to be put.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Lambie, can I just seek clarification on whether you are seeking a division in relation to the amendment? Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie would need to seek leave for that. What I'm saying is we have voted on that. We are quite happy to have her opposition to the amendment recorded, which is the same as having voted against, if she wishes.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge?

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

by leave—On behalf of the Greens, we'd like our opposition to the amendment to be noted. We didn't support it. We're happy for the matter then to proceed and have votes on the separate questions, both of which we will support, as amended. But we would like, for the record, our opposition to the amendment, which we think watered down the motion, to be noted.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your opposition is recorded. Thank you for that clarity. Senator Lambie?

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

by leave—I would like my opposition recorded as well, thank you.

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

by leave—I would like our opposition, as well, to the amendment recorded.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—And also me, thanks.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cadell, are you seeking the call?

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just seeking clarification on which way you called the division on paragraph (a) for the substantive motion.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're putting it again, just to have clarification. Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?

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

I am seeking the call. The amendment was put up. There's point (a) and point (b). What I would suggest is to put the amendment back up again, separate point (a) and point (b) and let us vote on that, because apparently the opposition to the amendment would clearly get up to oppose the amendment in its totality. But I don't oppose point (b) of the amendment. I do oppose point (a) but not (b). I want it separated and to put the vote back up again.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts asked for your opposition to be recorded. That's why he was on his feet. I'm seeking clarity to see if that still stands.

An honourable senator interjecting—

The question before the chair is that the original motion as amended, in respect of paragraph (a), be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

I think that some members may be acting on a misapprehension here. The amendments having happened, my understanding is that what we're dividing on is paragraph (a) as amended.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

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

I understand the government opposes that and would be comfortable having their opposition noted and not require a division. Perhaps Senator Lambie and others may, on reflection, not require a division because at least we get something with amended paragraph (a) being adopted. I think that was the discussion I just had with Senator Lambie.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask Senator Lambie to clarify whether a division is required so that we can cancel the division if it's not. The question before the chair is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to. Paragraph (a) was the question before the chair, and I had an indication that there was a division required. So are you seeking leave to cancel the division? Is that correct, Senator Lambie?

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

That is correct.

Leave granted.

Question agreed to.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I am recording the government's opposition to that motion. The question now before the chair is that the motion as amended, in respect of paragraph (b), be agreed to.

Question agreed to.