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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to Defence accountability and the Twenty-year review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force:

That:

(1) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to immediately attend the Senate to explain:

(i) the lack of transparency and accountability in relation to the tabling of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report;

(ii) why the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report was removed as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide;

(iii) who authorised the removal of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; and

(iv) who has been consulted in relation to the release of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; and

(2) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and

(3) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to Defence accountability and the Twenty-year review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force report.

Well, well, well, wasn't yesterday a farce! It was worse than a circus in here yesterday—absolutely disgraceful. Here I was, still pushing hard to get Minister Marles to release the 20-year review into the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The IGADF is the military justice system that sits within defence. Side by side, mates for mates and all that sort of stuff—they love each other. Set up 20 years ago in the wake of the bastardisation and abuse that was going on in our military, the IGADF are supposed to be there to make sure veterans get justice and are dealt with fairly and that any matters are investigated impartially. But they're not, are they? The royal commission demonstrated that. For God's sake, 18 out of the 122 recommendations of the royal commission were targeted at the military justice system.

On Monday, I sent an email calling for supporters to back in my calls for the release of the report of the 20-year review into the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. I forked out for radio ads and moved motions in the Senate every chance I got. Again, I was told I couldn't have it. Julie-Ann Finney even went down to Richard Marles's electorate office, in Geelong, on Monday morning and sat outside, begging Minister Marles to release the report. Jacqui Lambie Network supporters sent almost 2½ thousand emails to Minister Marles's office, flooding his inbox, demanding the minister release the report.

Then yesterday afternoon—it keeps getting better; you couldn't make this up—David Shoebridge's office, God bless them, found the report buried deep down on the royal commission's website. It wasn't listed as an exhibit, but there it was. My office called the royal commission and asked for the date that that report had gone up, and then it was gone. That's right—gone off that website in 30 minutes. Wow! We got a sniff of it, and they took it off the website—talk about transparency! But it was too late; we had already downloaded it and we'd already made copies of it. I can tell you that the only place it was going was right out there.

Senator Shoebridge and I headed back down to the chamber to table the report in the Senate yesterday afternoon, and the government refused. That's right. They don't want to put veterans first. You are part of the cover-up. You don't want to fix the culture that is apparently going on in our military, even after three years of a royal commission. But apparently you're going to table it—because it's so important—maybe sometime today. But veterans and Australians can go to lambienetwork.com.au and download their very own copy right now. We've done that for you because this government is too busy covering its own backside and that of defence, even after three years of a royal commission.

I would like to thank Justice Kerr for his work. He was given only three months to do that review, and that was over the Christmas period. It put him under the pump, and he was given very narrow terms of reference—because we wouldn't want to know the truth, would we? The truth's already there. Have you not been watching the royal commission? Sure you have! People from the department were there every day. I had veterans in there feeling intimidated because people from Defence thought it was a smart idea to wear their uniform with all their brass sparkling. How intimidating is that for a veteran to tell their story? This is what they were up against.

I'm sick of the cover-up. You say you want to make changes, you say you want the culture to change and you say you want to reduce veteran suicide, but you are part of the problem. You are not holding them accountable. And then you go and do stuff like this. It wasn't even redacted. That report is hardly redacted, yet your minister has been telling me he's been consulting for six months. Oh, really? We'll see who he's been consulting, because there are FOIs going at him quickly today. There are FOIs coming from Rex Patrick, and I'll tell you that I want some answers today.

The IGADF might be a statutory office, but it is not independent. Most veterans see the IGADF as an agency that just runs interference for defence, and that's exactly what it does. We don't see it. After the royal commission, we know they're running interference to cover their butts. Minister Marles needs to finally get off his rear end and start showing some courage. He's lost. He's finished. Marles is gone. Do you know why? Because he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the brass. He doesn't have the guts. He should never have been made minister. It's not his temperament. It's not who he is. And we will never ever get culture change. We will only get more veteran suicide, because you on this side are running a bloody racket with defence. Your minister is hopeless. Your minister is the worst I have ever seen—no courage. If you can't fix it, I'll keep coming. It will get fixed. It will get fixed before I leave this house. It will get fixed, and I will keep coming every minute I have.

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

We had an extraordinary situation yesterday. A motion was moved for the immediate production of the report on the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This review was commenced because the overwhelming feeling amongst serving and veteran members of the defence community is that the Inspector-General, whose job is to hear some of the most important cases involving military justice, issues of sexual assault, bullying and intimidation, as well as investigations into deaths—the overwhelming view amongst serving and veteran members of the community is that there is absolutely no independence in the office; it is just part of the chain of command. If you're a young woman trying to get some justice for a sexual assault that happened in the Defence Force, and you go to an institution that's just part of the chain of command and is effectively under the direction of the CDF, how could you possibly think you're going to get justice out of that—particularly if you're a junior member of the Defence Force—because you've seen time and time again how the leadership backs itself in.

We were seeking the immediate production of this document, and the defence minister and the defence department—which, last time I checked, was a $55 billion organisation—were in here doing what they always do: refusing transparency. It is their reflex action, saying: 'No, you can't see the report. No, you can't have it. No, we won't release it to the public. No, we won't release it to the veteran community.' That's what Defence did. But, with their $55 billion organisation, they failed to check that it had already been tendered and published by the royal commission. Who runs a $55 billion organisation where, for the purpose of a Senate debate, the minister's office can't even find out whether or not the report has already been tendered and published by the royal commission? I'll tell you who does: Deputy Prime Minister Marles. He couldn't run a chook raffle. He was in here fighting to oppose the immediate release of a report that's already been published by the royal commission.

In the course of that debate, we were making investigations in my office, hunting for any further information—and that's when we found the report on the royal commission website. The government resisted the immediate production of it, saying they couldn't possibly do that and that the sky would fall down if we had any kind of transparency in Defence. Some basic inquiries were made, I think by Senator Lambie's office, about when it got published, to a member of the executive—and what do you know? The report was deleted from the royal commission website, a week after it was handed down.

Is this how this government is going to treat the royal commission into veterans—that, a week after the report is handed down, when people find any evidence on that website or any tendered exhibits that are embarrassing to the government they're going to edit them and delete them? Who deleted it? Was it the Deputy Prime Minister's office who called for the deletion? Was it Minister Marles who called for the deletion? Is Minister Marles aware that his government is already editing the record of the royal commission a week after the report was handed down? Is it contempt? Is the Attorney-General going to investigate whether this is contempt of the royal commission? It appears the Deputy Prime Minister, or someone in his office, or someone in Prime Minister and Cabinet, is editing and deleting the records of a royal commission a week after the report was handed down. Will the government answer any of this?

Now we get this faux transparency from them. Now they say, 'Oh, here we are, tabling this document.' You're tabling the document because you've been embarrassed, because your incompetence, your malfeasance and your disrespect for the veteran community and the serving members of the ADF have been exposed for all to see. You're not tabling the document because you believe in transparency; you're tabling it because Senator Lambie and I handed copies out to the media and published it this morning in our own right. That's why you're publishing it. Embarrassing, incompetence and nastiness—that's what it is. (Time expired)

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

The issue was the report. The issue is now the government's behaviour. It is the government's behaviour that we need to see fixed. What are you hiding? This is supposed to be the house of review, but we can't get documents that are affecting people's lives on a daily basis—good soldiers, good veterans. And you are hiding it. We have been chasing the helicopter investigation report now for literally years. It keeps getting put off. Now we get just the executives summary of a report, redacted. We don't get the investigation report. We don't get the correspondence and all the other documents that are part of this investigation. That's what we asked for. But you're hiding something. You're hiding many things. As a result of the cover-up at least four lives were lost in a helicopter accident. We have received minimal information.

The last few days have been very weird. This is an unusual motion. But it's justified because of your behaviour, your covering up, your hiding. The government's behaviour is responsible for this motion. We've had Senator Ayres and Senator Watt do their usual when they're cornered: label people, smear people and make statements that are erroneous to deflect. It's government behaviour again. You won't be held accountable so you just smear. You blame the coalition, blame the Greens, blame One Nation and blame Senator Babet—blame, blame, blame. You're hijacking, smearing and building facades.

Look at this government. The senators asked the government—the workplace relations minister—to do an investigation into the massive wage theft from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley miners. The Senate has asked the minister to do that. We've heard nothing. Miners are losing up to $41,000 per year. One claim that went to the Fair Work Ombudsman recently was for $211,000 for one miner. It is billions of dollars.

The Help to Buy scheme—look at it! The Help to Buy scheme is absolutely hopeless. The Greens are opposed to it. We're opposed to it. Most of the crossbench and the coalition are opposed to it. You're digging your own grave. Start behaving responsibly. Then there was the Voice—smashed. It was put forward by the Labor Party without any basis. There was no basis, no argument—just a feeling.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the twin of the Digital ID Bill 2024, was passed in the Senate with a complete lack of debate. There were no questions. There was no debate in the committee stage of the bill. It's an absolute disgrace. It's one of the most far-reaching bills in the last few decades and it was completely squashed. There was no debate. The people of Australia couldn't have a say. Now we've got the misinformation and disinformation bill coming in to censor people. You can't even criticise or make a comment about the economy, because that's anti-government.

The fundamental thing is that the defence department and Defence are completely unaccountable, running rampant, destroying people's lives, killing people, causing the deaths of people, wasting billions of dollars and leaving our security in tatters. This is not a defence department—sorry, it is a defence department! It's not defending Australia; it's defending itself. That's why it's called the defence department; it's defending itself.

This government's behaviour is what's driving us to seek to have the minister come in here immediately. You are responsible for this because of your behaviour. This government is absolutely hopeless. You're falling down in every step you make. We need this motion to pass, and we in One Nation will be supporting it.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government certainly does not disrespect veterans. We thank each and every one of them for giving their evidence throughout the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and thank all those involved in the royal commission. There is no defence in terms of that—Senator Roberts, in particular. There is certainly an acceptance of the importance of this.

In my reference to Senator Lambie's motion, I just want to put this on the table: the government provided the 20-year review to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to form part of its consideration and final recommendations. I understand this report was provided under a notice to produce to the royal commission by the Commonwealth on a confidential basis. I further understand that the royal commission did not reject this confidentiality claim.

I'm advised the document was published on the royal commission's website in error, which I believe is where Senator Shoebridge has accessed this document. In contravention of the understanding regarding confidentiality, evidence procedures and understood conventions, I'm advised the office of the royal commission removed the document from its website after becoming aware of the error. But it is now public, as I just tabled it prior to Senator Lambie getting to her feet.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That:

(1) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to immediately attend the Senate to explain:

(i) the lack of transparency and accountability in relation to the tabling of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report;

(ii) why the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report was removed as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide;

(iii) who authorised the removal of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; and

(iv) who has been consulted in relation to the release of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; and

(2) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and

(3) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

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

by leave—I move:

Paragraph (1), amend "immediately" to "10 am tomorrow (Thursday, 19 September 2024)"

Paragraph (3), amend "60 minutes" to "30 minutes"

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

I want to place on record support for the motion as proposed, the motion from Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge, with that amendment in place. To provide some context, I spoke about these matters in the chamber earlier this week and, in doing so, acknowledged at the time the enduring debt of gratitude that every single Australian, especially every parliamentarian, should have to the women and men of our Defence Force and all of our veterans. I also acknowledged the relentless work of Senator Lambie in her efforts around support for veterans and accountability of government when it comes to the support for veterans. I also acknowledged, from the opposition's perspective, that we see as very important the work done by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We understand the intense interest of the veterans community in the work of the IGADF, and we understand and have supported transparency in relation to that work.

The way the government has handled this has turned into, to use the colloquial term, something of a cluster. For quite some time the government had said, 'Yes, we'll release the report but just not yet,' and that they were going through a process. As the opposition, respecting the sensitivity of these issues, we backed the release of the report and also gave the government the benefit of the doubt in relation to the need to prepare the work for release and to handle it with appropriate sensitivity regarding its content, with confidentiality matters and other matters being taken into account.

After the debates in this Senate and the call made very clearly by this Senate for the government to stop faffing about and saying they'd do it some time and instead to say precisely when and how they would release it, we then discover that, within different arms of government, the report's been published and then removed from the website and it's apparently just been tabled now. We've got this on-again off-again chaos coming from the government in handling something that is sensitive, that does matter and that should have been part of a proper process from the outset. The government should've had the foresight to think about how they were going to handle this from the outset themselves, without needing to be prompted by the Senate.

But, when they were prompted by Senator Lambie and the Senate, they certainly should have worked out what the process would be. Frankly, if they haven't worked out by now that Senator Lambie was going to be a bit of a terrier in coming back again and again, then they haven't been paying attention during her time in the Australian Senate and they should have realised that, actually, they'd have been much better off being clear, firm and precise about how and when it was going to be handled. They could have certainly earned the trust of the alternative government and hopefully even earned the trust of other senators, but, most importantly, they could've earned the trust of the veterans community by being more precise and thoughtful in the way they've handled it.

We support this motion because the chaos, the mishandling, the on-again off-again responses from the government and the accidental publication of the report deserve to be explained. Given the amendment that Senator Shoebridge has proposed, non-government senators have agreed it would be better that the government has 24 hours to think about it, to understand what happened and to come and give a serious response to the Senate. The amendment to replace 'immediately' with '10 am tomorrow' is foreshadowing to the government: Take this matter seriously. Don't just come in here with some glib statement that seeks to brush it aside and say, 'Oh, well, we've tabled it now.' Take it seriously and understand the seriousness with which non-government senators have taken it. We are giving that time to the government rather than simply calling a minister to the table immediately so that they can come in here and detail how it is that this report was published and then removed from publication and why there has been this delay in terms of transparency and accountability, only for the minister to suddenly bring it to the Senate floor right now.

This type of chaotic approach should not be how such a sensitive issue is handled, and the government should come prepared tomorrow to be very clear about what the delays were; why the accident—if it was an accident to publish—occurred; what interventions occurred to have it removed; why there is the sudden change of heart to publish it in this chamber today; and ultimately, how the government is going to take these matters forward with far greater care and sensitivity than they have shown to date.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government supports the motion and the amendment to the motion, and we're ready to proceed with the debate on paid parental leave.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.