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

I'm pleased to provide this report to the Senate. In September 2023 the government commissioned the 20-year review into the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The review, led by former Federal Court justice, the Hon. Duncan Kerr SC, was the first review conducted into the IGADF in the two decades since its inception. The government received the review in March of this year. It is thorough and far-reaching at some 139 pages and makes 47 recommendations, which go to a range of complex proposed reforms.

Since receiving the review, the government has been carefully considering its findings and how they may intersect with the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Through this time, there have been consultations, including with the royal commission, the Department of Defence, other statutory agencies, the Attorney-General's Department, the reviewer and advocates in this space. The office of the IGADF has advised that, as part of the consultations, it conducted some 23 interactions with stakeholders and advisory organisations. In April 2024, the government provided the review to the royal commission to inform its consideration and final recommendations. On two separate occasions, the Commonwealth solicitors advised the royal commission solicitors the report had not been published and requested the royal commission carefully consider its use of the report, including any publication, pending the government's review of the report. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the public release of the review was always intended to follow the release of the royal commission's final report. This is because the government's preference was to respond to the review and the royal commission in a holistic and practical way.

Yesterday the royal commission issued a statement outlining the circumstances by which the report came to be published on its website. The statement makes clear that the decision to remove the report from the royal commission's website was made by the royal commission's official secretary. I am advised the official secretary made this decision after she became aware it was on the website on Tuesday 17 September 2024, when the royal commission's office was notified by Senator Lambie's office. I'm advised there was no direction or request from the government, the Deputy Prime Minister, his office, the Department of Defence or the IGADF to the royal commission to take the report down after it had been uploaded to the commission's website. I understand the Department of Defence has issued a public statement confirming this. The Deputy Prime Minister has advised me his office became aware the report was public on Tuesday afternoon at 4.19 pm, when it was contacted by a media outlet with the suggestion that there was a copy of the report in circulation. I'm advised that, by this point, the report had already been removed from the royal commission's website.

As the senator is aware, the government commissioned the review into the IGADF. We also called for the royal commission whilst in opposition, We have moved quickly to respond to its interim findings in government and have committed to do the same for its final recommendations. The government remains committed to improving our military justice system and the culture of the Australian Defence Force, because we owe nothing less to the men and women of the ADF and our veterans. The government remains willing to engage with Senator Lambie in that process.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.

It's been nine days now since the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was released. The report was released last Monday. On Friday, you decided in your wisdom that you'd also release the alleged war crimes report right in their faces—how insensitive—and then we had the debacle that this has been. This report on the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has actually been on the royal commission website since May, so saying it never should have been on there—that's rubbish.

My other problem is I've got the original one that's off the website, which the commissioners have actually redacted for publication. There are names redacted from it—not a problem there. However, I noticed that little redacted thing that you gave me yesterday is now missing. Yes, that's now missing.

So I've got to ask why you're trying to cover this up. This is dreadful—to hit the panic button and take it down. I tell you what's even more astounding is that there's nothing in that report. So you get it out there, and Defence goes, 'We've got a problem. We've got a problem here. Pull it down.' It's straight to cover-up, straight to a slap across those veterans' faces. Three years of coming forward, showing courage, telling their stories, putting their families through all this stuff again, and this is what's going on. The first thing you do when you're alerted is pull it down. I just don't understand why it would even be pulled down.

I haven't checked this morning, but I hope it's back up there, because it should be, because there is nothing in this report that we haven't already heard from the royal commission. And I tell you why. It's because your government only gave Justice Kerr three months to get this done over the Christmas period, and yet your minister's had it for six months. As I think my request this morning was, I want to know who the minister has consulted and when he consulted them. I didn't hear that. I'm pretty sure that was in my request. I want a list. I want to see what he's been doing in the last six months—why this report was just sitting there. I need to know what the situation is today.

The way you guys have handled yourselves in front of veterans in the last nine days has been extremely hurtful. The damage that you have done has been disgraceful. It's been so insensitive. But, what's even worse, you want to fight over this? You want to fight over this when it's quite clear that it says basically the same thing the royal commission does—that the IGADF is not fit for purpose. Our military justice system has been killing our own, those that have served. We've heard the stories. So this is what we need to do. We need to remove it from Defence because Defence cannot police itself; it fails to do so. That's the big story here. But instead of saying, 'Hey, Mr Gaynor, you're going today'—he has no conscience and he hasn't put in his resignation.

So the hurt that is running around that veterans community, when no heads up at the top have rolled—none of those big senior commanders up there can see that they were part of this problem, especially over the last 10 years. They do not see fit to resign because they failed to do the job and they were part of taking veterans' lives. That's the big issue today. Nor have I seen your minister have any courage to say, 'You're all getting warnings'—who's getting warnings; who's going?—or at least make phone calls and say, 'I want your resignation tomorrow, mate.' I can tell you that, if you have a minister saying, 'I want your resignation tomorrow,' I doubt there's going to be much argument, because that would be shameful. I would hope that some of those big senior officers up there would have a little bit of conscience and shame still left within them.

Until you start doing something, showing that you are actually going to take a big stick to this and you are going to take some of those awards off them—because apparently they were so great with their personnel!—no veteran's going to take you seriously. The sad point is—a mate rang me up this morning, he said, 'I'm really sorry; I know how much work you've done and what's happened here'—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie. Senator Shoebridge.

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

I also take note of the minister's statement. There's a reason why the government tried to hide this report, and it's because, on any fair reading of it, it shows why veterans and current serving members in Defence have no faith in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The report says:

In times of conflict the lives of those who serve in the ADF can be put in hazard in the interests of their community. Such a risk is assumed by every individual who chooses to subject themselves to the command imperatives of military service. But the risks of rough justice, bullying, sexual abuse, inappropriate conduct or humiliation are of an entirely different character.

That is the conduct that the inspector-general is meant to be policing and conducting enforcement activity against through the military justice system, and no-one in the organisation who isn't of at least one-star rank has any faith in the inspector-general. The report also says:

The Review has become aware that a not insignificant body of well-motivated critics of the IGADF do hold a perception that the IGADF is 'umbilically-linked' to the command structure of the ADF. The existence of that perception is too widely based as would permit it to be ignored.

No-one has faith in the inspector general, and that's why the government buried the report.

Now we've had the most extraordinary performance from this government. Barely a week after the royal commission handed down its findings, Senator Lambie and a majority of members in this place are trying to get the government to release this report, and the government are hiding and hiding and hiding, desperately trying to not release the report. Then, when I and my office look on the royal commission website and find it has been published by the royal commissioners as an exhibit, we download it, share it with Senator Lambie and undertake to share it with the public and the veteran and serving community. And what does this government do? It deletes it from the website.

They have been spinning and spinning and spinning in the last 24 to 48 hours. They leak a story to the Age, to James Massola, and they tell him that it was an accidental leak by the royal commission. There's a headline saying it was an accidental leak or an unintentional publication. That's their spin. It is not true—false, lies, not true. It was intentionally published by the royal commission, an act of the royal commissioners, not some employed secretary or some staff member who's responsible to the Attorney-General's Department. It was a decision of the royal commissioners. Their letters patent ended on Monday last week when they handed the royal commission's report to the government. In fact, when they handed their report to the government, their role ended. The royal commission ended. Their security passes were wiped, their access to documents was wiped and the royal commission ended.

Now we're getting this spin from the government, including this extraordinary statement that purports to be a statement from the royal commission but which could not be a statement from the royal commission because the royal commission ended on Monday last week. There's an employee of either the Attorney-General's Department or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—I am not sure—calling themselves the secretary of the royal commission and purporting to make a statement on the part of the royal commission, when the royal commission ended. This isn't a statement made by the royal commissioners. I don't think they've even been consulted about the decision to remove a public exhibit that the royal commissioners had determined to publish. And why did they determine to publish it? Because they want their report to have credibility and, to the extent they relied upon any evidence, they undertook to publish it so that the veteran community and the serving members in the ADF could see the basis upon which the decisions were made. Then some official, without any reference to those royal commissioners, decided to delete it from the website.

As for the government's position about accidental leaks and unintentional this and that—'Oh it was all meant to be covered by confidentiality'—I'm going to call bullshit on that, and now I'm going to withdraw that comment.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, mind your language.

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

It is lies, spin and deceit, and they've been caught out. Now we get this statement from the minister, who is again putting forward this false narrative that it was a mistake. It was intentional, and this government is editing the royal commission's report.

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

This has been a most unnecessary and most counterproductive bungling of these matters by the Albanese government. What we have seen through their mishandling, mistakes and bungling of the handling of these sensitive reports is an undermining of already shaky confidence and trust in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and an undermining of confidence in the government's commitment and ability to address the serious issues facing Australian veterans. As I've said in the various motions and debates that have occurred around these issues over the last couple of days, we owe the most profound debt of gratitude as a country and as a parliament, all of us, to the women and men of the Australian Defence Force who wear its uniform and the veterans who have worn its uniform. We owe them the best in the way in which we conduct ourselves and ensure that their interests, their wellbeing and their welfare are considered and cared for appropriately.

The whole point of having had the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was to ensure that government turned a corner and turned a page in the way in which the treatment of veterans is handled and considered. Sadly the government's ham-fisted attempts to sit on the IGADF report and to fail to release it and then to accidentally release it and then to withdraw its public release and then to table it in this chamber under pressure have done nothing but undermine confidence in the genuineness and capability of the government to respond to these most sensitive issues. The release of the report of the royal commission, so fresh in people's minds, should have been a turning point in this debate. It should have provided confidence that the care and wellbeing of veterans were genuinely going in a new direction and on a new pathway underpinned by government transparency, accountability and honesty rather than government cover-ups and bungling.

The coalition welcomed the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It contained 122 recommendations. It was a sweeping report. Those are framed around five key priority areas: the prevention of harm; early intervention; the need to improve communication, coordination and collaboration; the need to build capability and capacity; and the need to strengthen oversight and accountability. If we look at a couple of those key areas, the improving of communication, coordination and collaboration or the strengthening of oversight and accountability, how—

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

That's done well.

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

Indeed, Senator Shoebridge. How does anybody think that the bungling we've seen by the Albanese government shows any capacity to improve communication, coordination and collaboration or to strengthen oversight and accountability, when they have dragged veterans through this very sorry saga in relation to the IGADF report?

Ultimately these issues must be bigger than politics. There are difficult issues here and there will be difficult questions in responding to all 122 recommendations. There may well be times when the parties of government will find that some of those recommendations might require honest discussions with the veteran community about whether all aspects of all of them are actually possible. So I hope that, despite the bungling and the difficulties of this episode, we can find a way now to put it behind us, to put veterans first and to actually ensure that the confidence and trust that has been undermined through this saga is re-established through a proper process to deliver on as many of those recommendations as is absolutely possible by government and to do so as quickly as possible to give veterans the support, the respect and the services they need and deserve.

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

Well, the minister's explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge's motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government's response. The claim isn't that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn't meant to be released because the government didn't want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn't want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That's not good enough.

An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn't get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we're left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we're quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn't lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.

The minister's explanation clearly isn't sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I'll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There's a way to make sure this is a win-win. I'll go through it again. It's making sure sensitive information isn't released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.

This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee's first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it's feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it's time to deal with this issue again.

This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn't have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister's claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It's true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.

I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate's scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that's what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired)

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to make a brief contribution today in the debate that's arisen out of the minister's explanation on the release of the report of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 20-year review. It's always interesting to listen to the debates in this place, particularly when some senators—not all, but some—try to reshape or rewrite history about the events around the making of such reports. As we noted from what I thought was a very clear explanation from the minister about how this document came into the public domain, it's also worth noting the public statements by the royal commission about the events that occurred and how the document itself came to light on its public website, and the processes by which many documents had been uploaded onto the website and the decision of the royal commission and its official secretary on how it handled that.

So, I don't think it's fair to say that the government instructed anyone to remove the document from the website. In fact, I was in the chamber earlier in the week when Senator McCarthy, as the minister on the front bench here, tabled the document, just to avoid any doubt about the status of the document. But we hear from some in this place that there is somehow a conspiracy going on here, that the government is trying to cover up a document, trying to cover up processes whereby we are simply trying to ensure that certain documents are made public, as we did earlier in the week. But what we have from some senators, particularly those from the Greens, is some sort of conspiracy theory around the government trying to, they think, hide evidence from the Australian people. But the minister has made the processes very clear, as has the royal commission. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story!

It's also important to note that the review was commissioned by this government, by the Albanese Labor government—not something that those opposite or the crossbench, the Greens, had advocated for. It was the Labor Party that asked that this report be commissioned when we first came into government, just as we also, when we first came into government, made sure the royal commission was supported from day one. That is something I was very proud to call on when I first came into this place, and I'm very proud that the Albanese government has supported that royal commission, unlike those opposite when they were in government. They refused to support the royal commission. Remember, they wanted some other forum, some other organisation to look into these organisations.

I know that Senator Ruston and others on the other side will want to try to recast how history was portrayed. But the Morrison government did not support our veterans and did not support a royal commission into the suicides that were occurring in Defence and in our veteran community.

Our government, from day one, has made it very clear that we want to back those who wear the uniform, and I know Senator Lambie is someone who is very passionate about this issue and has a very strong and proud history in terms of the support she and her office give to the veterans who constantly contact them for advice, and rightly so, given her advocacy over many years. But I know someone who is married to a veteran, and how important these issues are. And I want to make sure that governments, regardless of which side of the political fence they are on, address the core issues about why governments have had to get a royal commission up and running and why we commission reports, whether it be through the royal commission or whether it be the report that's in question here today that we tabled earlier in the week. It is important that we all get behind our veterans and make sure we do the right thing and fix the wrongs of the past. That is what this government has committed to do from day one. Yet we somehow get caught up in a debate about a document, about whether it was online or not, whether it should be tabled in the Senate or not. The main thing is that governments have to back our veterans. That is the fundamental point here, and that is something that we have been doing from day one.

We've also made it very clear since taking office that it's unacceptable that there's been a backlog of claims that veterans have had to put up with for far too long. It's something on which we have said, 'Right, we need to fix that,' and that is why we are putting— (Time expired)

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the Senate take note of the explanation provided by the minister.

Question agreed to.