Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to the current government for making sure that the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 came forward. We all know that it was introduced by the former government, and that it has the support of the opposition, the government and the military, so it is non-contentious. I propose to use a small amount of the parliament’s time to visit an issue that I am getting some constituent concerns about, in relation to the military justice system.

Again, this is something that both sides of the parliament should consider. There is no politics in this. It is important that things are seen to be done right. The issue is in relation to military boards of inquiry. I refer to three recent boards of inquiry, and one of them is current. The problem for defence is that defence is dammed if it does and damned if it does not in relation to making military boards of inquiry open and transparent.

I will give you an example. You will all remember the loss of a Black Hawk helicopter off Fiji last year. In fact, two members of the military were killed. One of them was from Townsville and one was from Perth. We all remember the bravery of Melissa Bingley on the loss of her husband, and how she handled herself. The problem was that the government asked the board of inquiry not to publicly release the footage of the helicopter arriving back at the ship. But in its wisdom the board of inquiry said, ‘No; things have got to be open, transparent and accountable.’ So we were treated to endless replays of the deaths of two members of the Australian Defence Force on our television screens during the evening news bulletins. And it went on for a long time. I found it quite sickening to think that these were images of two members of the ADF going to their deaths. That should never have been broadcast.

The point that I am making is that the boards of inquiry need to be open and transparent but they also need to think about the family members who are left behind. In relation to Jake Kovco’s inquiry—and that is still going, in another form—the military knew of the very sensitive personal matters that were behind that particular issue. They should never have been made public—they should not have. They could have been dealt with behind the scenes, but they became public, causing enormous stress to Private Kovco’s family.

In relation to the current inquiry into the death of Ashley Baker in Timor, who took his own life quite recently, I have had a significant number of emails from defence families in Townsville who knew Ashley, saying, ‘Why does all this graphic detail have to be made public?’ I think you all know what I am saying. The problem, of course, that defence has is that if it does not make things public you get the squawking classes who say, ‘They’re hiding something. They’re holding inquiries in secret.’ Defence is not like that. Defence does not cover up. If something has to be addressed, it will be addressed.

The senior leadership of defence is here in this building right now. They are very fine people. There is no way they would ever, ever cover things up and not act upon them. I think we have to have a little more trust in the senior leadership of the ADF and say to them: ‘Where there are sensitive matters, keep them sensitive—keep them out of the public arena. Think about the families and members of the ADF who see this salacious material being paraded on the national news.’ That is my point.

I do hope that the Australian public, the Australian media and the Australian Defence Force will have a rethink about what gets released from boards of inquiry. Certainly this particular bill is a very solid step in the right direction in relation to simplifying and redesigning the military justice system. I certainly will be supporting this bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context