Mr SOMLYAY (5:07 PM) —I present the reports of the Standing Committee of Privileges concerning the alleged threats or intimidation against a witness before the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the possible unauthorised disclosure of in camera evidence to the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr SOMLYAY —by leave—The two reports I have tabled report on references arising from an inquiry of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into issues of military justice. The first report relates to allegations of threats or intimidation of Corporal Smith, a former member of 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, as a witness before the Defence Subcommittee. Corporal Smith appeared before the Defence Subcommittee on 6 October 2000 and gave evidence in public and in camera. The committee received evidence that Corporal Smith had received a threatening telephone call on 14 October 2000 and that there had been criminal damage on 21 October to an external wall and door of a room where he had been living.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify the person or persons responsible for these incidents and it appears unlikely that they will be identified. While Corporal Smith indicated to the committee that he was not concerned about his immediate safety, he was not sanguine about his safety in the longer term or his career prospects in the Army. Corporal Smith indicated that he thought it may be in his best interests to apply for a service transfer to the Navy or Air Force. The Australian Defence Force indicated to the committee the efforts it had taken to protect Corporal Smith. In the committee's view, these have been satisfactory. Admiral Barrie also told the committee in relation to Corporal Smith's career options that the ADF would:

The committee was satisfied that the threats to Corporal Smith were serious and could reasonably be concluded as relating to his evidence before the Defence Subcommittee. Unfortunately, as the person or persons responsible have not been identified, the committee cannot take the matter further. However, the committee wishes to make clear that it does not regard this report as necessarily concluding its inquiry into this matter. Should the committee be provided with information during the current parliament that suggests to it that the matter is ongoing, then it will seek to investigate further. The committee also wishes to see that Corporal Smith has every opportunity to complete his career with the ADF with safety and confidence. Consequently, the committee recommends that the ADF does all within its power to accommodate any request for a transfer by Corporal Smith.

The second report relates to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of in camera evidence taken by the Defence Subcommittee as part of its inquiry into military justice issues in an article by Mr Michael Ware in Time magazine. On the basis of the evidence, the committee cannot rule out any of a number of possibilities as to how the unauthorised disclosure occurred. It is also not clear whether there was more than one unauthorised disclosure.

Nevertheless, the committee finds that there was an inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of in camera evidence so that Mr Michael Ware, a journalist with Time magazine, was able to publish extracts from the evidence disclosed to him in an article in Time magazine. The disclosure and the subsequent publication of the in camera evidence created the potential for serious consequences, including damage to witnesses, interference with the work of the Defence Subcommittee and damage to the parliamentary committee system generally. Unfortunately, the committee has not been able to ascertain the identity of the person or persons responsible. However, if further evidence becomes available about the source of the disclosure, the committee considers the matter should be referred again for further investigation.

In addition, the committee finds that there was an inadvertent or deliberate unauthorised disclosure to an officer in the Department of Defence of a copy of the in camera evidence. While the committee had no evidence to connect the unauthorised disclosure with the publication by Mr Ware in his article of quotations from the in camera evidence, this possibility cannot be ruled out. The unauthorised disclosure to Defence is a serious matter and very regrettable. However, the committee has no evidence that the disclosure caused damage to witnesses or caused interference with the work of the subcommittee.

The committee's primary concern about this disclosure is that the committee was not advised of it sooner. The then Defence adviser was aware that the transcript had been received by an officer of the Department of Defence at the time this inquiry was referred to the committee. He should have advised the committee secretary at the earliest opportunity of the disclosure. The committee secretary should have advised the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee at the earliest opportunity of the disclosure and, in turn, the chair of the subcommittee should have told the Chair of the Standing Committee of Privileges. If there had been earlier advice of this disclosure, then the inquiry would have been handled very differently or may not have been undertaken at all. The failure to inform the committee was a considerable error of judgment.

The committee is particularly concerned that the committee secretary and the Defence adviser were not more frank with the committee regarding the disclosure of the in camera evidence to an officer in Defence when they first gave oral evidence. They had refreshed their memories on the morning they gave evidence about this disclosure and should have made the committee aware of it when they first appeared. If further evidence becomes available about the source of this disclosure, the committee considers the matter should be referred again for further investigation.

Finally, the committee makes some general observations about such cases. The committee recommends procedures for committees to use in handling in camera evidence. The committee also considers that there should be greater onus on committees which experience unauthorised disclosures to investigate these matters in more detail before they are referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges. In this case, a more thorough inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade may have revealed the unauthorised disclosure to the officer in Defence and possibly have averted the need for an investigation by the Standing Committee of Privileges.