Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The ADF, but Navy in particular, has been the subject of numerous inquiries, reviews and investigations reaching back to 1994 and the inquiry into HMAS Swan and sexual harassment in the ADF. Since then there has been a steady stream of other significant parliamentary, coronial and quasi-judicial inquiries into matters relating to unacceptable behaviour in the ADF. All have produced recommendations that the ADF, by and large, has accepted and then pledged to implement. Despite the efforts of successive service chiefs to make lasting reforms, nothing seems to change. This seemingly endless cycle of reports of incidents of unacceptable behaviour followed by inquiry followed by reform programs must stop.

The overriding message coming out of this most recent Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry is that Defence must take responsibility for identifying its problems and managing them. The ADF prides itself on producing leaders, and rightly so. However, it is an important part of leadership to step forward and take responsibility. Nevertheless, in part 1 of its report, the committee found that the management of unacceptable behaviour aboard Success demonstrated an absence of leadership; serious errors of judgment, starting with a lack of proper attention given to early warning signals of alcohol abuse in Darwin; a failure to exercise duty of care, especially towards young female sailors, who did not receive the protection or mentoring that was required; and scant regard for, or, at best, ignorance of, Defence's legal procedures. The committee was firmly of the view that, although evident at all levels through the chain of command, those in the position of highest authority must accept that their inattention, poor judgment and lack of courage meant that the safety and wellbeing of those under their charge was put at risk. The committee found this situation intolerable.

It also noted that in HMAS Success things started to go wrong from the moment an incident occurred. Rather than minimise any initial damage, each measure taken or not taken on board the ship appeared to compound the problem. In the second part of its report, the committee found that the mistakes and shortcomings in procedures continued in both the disciplinary and the administrative systems. Major problems were identified in the investigations undertaken by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service. Overwhelming evidence from the investigator on the ground through to the director of operations showed that the investigations were unsatisfactory. Indeed, the director of operations referred to them as 'an aberration in terms of how the service should be doing business'. A subsequent inquiry into the performance of the investigative service in respect of HMAS Success revealed a raft of significant deficiencies. These ranged from serious allegations not being investigated or not properly investigated—for example, important witnesses were not interviewed, key documents were not considered, and signed statements were not taken—to inadequate documentation, in some cases an absence of records, and a breakdown in communication.

The committee notes that for a number of years it has raised concerns about the standard of investigations undertaken by the investigative service. The recent revelation about shortcomings in this investigative service is most disturbing. The committee suggests to ADFIS that the problems identified in the investigations that took place relating to incidents on board Success in 2009 should not be treated as an aberration. Indeed, they should be considered in the light of the committee's 2005 findings and ADFIS's continuing attempts to improve its investigations. The committee found in 2005 that the ADF had proven itself manifestly incapable of adequately performing its investigatory function. The committee has requested that the investigative service incorporate in its next report to the committee an account of the lessons to be learned from its performance in respect of HMAS Success.

There were also major flaws in the management of the three sailors removed from the ship in Singapore following allegations of unacceptable conduct. Two matters in particular should be mentioned. Firstly, for many months after their landing in Singapore, the sailors were left completely in the dark about the reasons for their removal from Success. There is no satisfactory explanation for this prolonged and unnecessary suspension of procedural fairness.

Secondly, Navy failed to correct errors and highly sensational media reports. The reports publicly pilloried the sailors for doing something that they did not do—that is, their involvement in the so-called 'sex ledger'. Those in Defence managing the media reports at that time should have made it their business at the very least to acquaint themselves with the facts as best they could. The responsibility for correcting the errors also resided with those who knew the reports were incorrect. Apparently no-one bothered. The detachment from and lack of concern for the sailors' wellbeing in the glare of adverse publicity was a continuation of the attitude shown toward them during their removal from Success and return to Sydney. Even after the distress caused by the false reports of their involvement in a sex scandal, they still, despite repeated requests, could not obtain information on why they were landed and returned to Sydney.

The inquiries and investigations into the allegations levelled against them and their treatment for many months after their landing are a sorry example of what can go wrong when things are not properly managed. There has been huge expenditure of resources on the myriad inquiries and investigations, but it is clear that the damage inflicted on the reputation of Navy and some of its personnel might have been avoided or contained if close attention had been paid to proper process and to the advice and guidance provided in the relevant manuals.

In the light of the multiple breakdowns in procedure and breaches of standard practice in the management of reports of unacceptable behaviour at Success through the mishandling of media reports, the committee recommended that Defence look carefully at its internal control mechanisms, including those for handling media requests and reports. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.