Senator MARK BISHOP (6:51 PM) —I rise to take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into the effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system, a subject which I have spoken on a couple of times this week already, and which was, on a previous sitting date, the subject of comments by my leader, Senator Evans, and the chair of that committee, Senator Hutchins, both of whom participated actively in its deliberations and were responsible in part for the unanimous report that was brought down by the honourable senators engaged in that inquiry over a period of some 18 months or two years. I want to continue today in the same vein, recognising the huge importance of this matter now and into the future.

I am sure many senators agree that this is a somewhat unsavoury and, in some respects, quite embarrassing subject. In these modem days, it is quite unacceptable that any part of our society should be constantly the focus of unacceptable behaviour or treatment through the system in which they work. We do not accept it in any work place. We do not even accept it of footballers. The rhetorical question is: why should we accept it in the Australian defence forces? More to the point, if we can change the culture of footballers, which is a culture as tough as that of the military, why is it so difficult for the military to change its culture? The answer one comes to is the lack of leadership.

On that point, it must be said again that, despite six public and private reports in the nine long years of the Howard government, nothing has been done and nothing has changed in the administration of military justice. Every time a report comes down we get assurances that the system is fine, like the recent assurance made by the departing Chief of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove. While the assurances of the incoming Chief of the Defence Force, Air Marshal Houston, are encouraging, on the basis of past experience we cannot take much reassurance from them. In that context it was interesting to note Senator Hill’s detailed response to a question today as to the urgency of the government’s response to the matter and the way he is dealing with it within his department.

It is one thing to promise, as the new Chief of the Defence Force has, to stamp out bullying and harassment. But it is about much more than that. It is not just about bullying and harassment; it is about a culture which refuses to acknowledge that it has a problem. It is about concealment, bias and unfairness. At its base it is about defending a system which provides no redress and of itself encourages denial. It is about protecting mates for the good of the regiment, so to speak. I am afraid that now we have gone beyond the good of the regiment. It is now about the good of the entire Australian Defence Force. No amount of counselling, lecturing on good behaviour or pamphleteering is going to fix that.

People misbehaving and mistreating others outside the disciplinary regime have to be brought to account. At the same time, victims, or complainants, often need protection and assistance. At present they get none. In fact, it is clear that, if you have a grievance, if you have been mistreated, you should forget it. It is not worth the trouble. You will be branded as a troublemaker and then your trouble will really start. Every instance as reported in the media has fitted that description. If you speak out of turn, pack your bags. If you complain, pack your bags. Do not expect an objective and impartial inquiry, for the odds are that there is no such thing. In every one of the recent high-profile cases there has been a breakdown of process. In every case the initial inquiry into a complaint has had its findings overturned. We can only imagine how many other grievances get properly looked into even once, let alone twice. If you dare to go outside to a civilian tribunal for redress, you will be trumped there as well.

What is most disturbing is that this culture still goes to the very top of the military hierarchy. It is deeply entrenched. That is why the committee members unanimously used the expression ‘root and branch removal’. There is a better way. The Senate committee recommendations are worthy of deep and serious consideration. More importantly, the government needs to look at the underlying principle. It is not about institutional frameworks or protecting existing structures, processes and jobs; it is about independence and objectivity. It is also about accountability. Most of all, it is about human dignity, and at present we do not have a great deal of this. The system seemingly does not allow for it. It is hard to imagine why the hierarchy of command would bother to defend the status quo.

Every manager knows how difficult personnel matters are. Managing people as well as possible is a professional responsibility. For most commanders, we would hope that would be principle No.1. When it all gets derailed, call in the experts. If there is fault, confess, make amends and make sure it does not happen again. We need to learn from our mistakes, not make them again and again for years on end.

As well as being a cultural problem, it is a systemic problem. One reinforces the other. Again, it worked for the football codes, so why can’t it work in this environment? Our defence forces are continually on a public plinth, and quite rightly so—we all respect and admire their commitment. They too want to be rid of the bad press and the human tragedies. It is up to the government and Minister Hill. May I repeat that this requires leadership, and we trust that is shortly about to be demonstrated publicly by Minister Hill. Otherwise, we will have more of the same and we on this side, at least for the next two or three years, will have to say, sadly, ‘We told you so.’

Question agreed to.