Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009. This bill is in two parts. The first part concentrates on the establishment of a discretionary tactical payment scheme, and it is critically important, as our troops operate in the Middle East environment and indeed in other areas, that we move away from an act of grace payment to empowering people actually at the battle face to be able to make compensatory payments to people where damage has occurred. One of the simple lessons in life, which goes back to time immemorial in engaging with the enemy, is that there will often be collateral damage to assets, to individuals and to livestock. If we are to win this offensive against terrorism in Afghanistan, or indeed in other areas that may or may not eventuate out of our engagement when addressing terrorism, we need to empower people on the ground to take immediate action to address losses.

This bill is long overdue. In America they operate under two systems of payments. Firstly, they have a condolence payment, which is an expression of sympathy for death, injury or property damage caused by coalition or US forces generally during combat. In addition, at the commander’s discretion, payments may be made to civilians who are harmed by enemy action when working with the US forces. But, importantly, payment is not an admission of legal liability or fault. Secondly, a solatia payment, which is a token or nominal payment for death, injury or property damage caused by coalition or US forces during combat, is made in accordance with local custom as an expression of remorse or sympathy towards a victim or his or her family. Again, payment is not an admission of legal liability or fault.

Perhaps the key and critical argument in establishing this tactical payment system is that we address the issue in rapid time. This means that payment can be authorised by the minister through delegated approval to the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Chief of Defence Force, a military officer in command of an activity of the Defence Force outside Australia, and that officer in command of a deployed force will vary depending on the size of the operation—that officer may be a lieutenant colonel or equivalent or higher—or an APS employee who holds or performs the duties of an APS6 or higher, and is intended for those who have been deployed on an overseas operation as the policy officer to the officer in command of an activity outside Australia.

The reality is that in Afghanistan at the moment, and in some of the offensives we are taking against terrorism in protecting freedoms and democracies and getting rid of this scourge on the earth, collateral damage is occurring. Sometimes that collateral damage is to a building or it could be to animals and livestock. Sadly, and unfortunately, it could also relate to an individual’s life. The ability to immediately make a compensation payment to that person can address a lot of the grieving, particularly when a household farm, equipment or livestock have been damaged. We are not talking about massive amounts of money. This legislation will set in place a payment with a set limit of $250,000. Normally, in areas of operation through the Middle East, I am informed these payments would max out generally around $1,500. We are not talking about large sums of money being carried around by soldiers buying their way out of trouble; we are talking about a genuine attempt to mitigate the damage at a local level, to try to keep a semblance of peace, so we are engaged against the terrorist enemy and not against the people who have suffered collateral damage. I think that is critically important.

I know the US military have a very different system from that which we have in Australia, but we can take from their experiences. Their US forces manual, through the United States Government Accountability Office, is quoted in the Bills Digest as follows:

The new U.S. Army Field Manual on Counterinsurgency greatly stresses the importance of winning civilians’ hearts and minds.   To win hearts and minds, militaries must take a holistic approach to rebuilding a nation after war by providing infrastructure, governance, safety and well-being.  Failure in these components may prevent lasting victory.

It goes on to say:

… positive treatment of civilians becomes imperative to strategic military interests. While building a school or hospital may help the military “win over” a community, providing individual monetary assistance to a family who lost a breadwinner during a firefight can “win over” a family and a neighborhood.

What I am saying is that the opposition will support this initiative by the government because we see it as a way of winning the war, particularly in Afghanistan. There have been many, from the Russians through to Alexander the Great, who have tried to establish authority in Afghanistan. Each has had varying degrees of success and some have had massive failure. But it is true that the only way to win this war on terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan. You cannot do that if you take away their breadwinner accidentally; you cannot do that if you destroy their livestock without some form of compensation. This goes a way towards addressing that.

What is key but is also missing in this is that, previously, acts of grace payments have been reported as part of the Defence annual report in a quantum. I am foreshadowing that the coalition will be moving an amendment in the Senate that will see a reporting structure to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security and will require a full list of tactical payments made in the preceding year. We see that as one way of achieving transparency in order to understand the quantum of the payments.

The other thing that I note in the explanatory memorandum is that it says there will be no financial impact from this bill. There is not much point in having a tactical payment system whereby you are going to make remediation for damage that has occurred or loss of life if you are not going to pay out money—introducing this scheme and establishing such a structure that is not going to be used. The whole idea of establishing this tactical payment scheme is to take away from the onerous reporting and paperwork in relation to the acts of grace payment scheme and expedite it. So what we see is that there will be a financial impact. If it brings about a closer resolution to the war on terrorism by taking the people of Afghanistan on the journey with us—which is an often used term—then there will be an impact. But that is not the issue. It is just that in the explanatory memorandum there is the claim that there will be no financial impact from this bill, and that is quite misleading. We will be moving that amendment in the Senate. The government now has the opportunity to think through how it will report back and perhaps cooperate with the opposition. The government, as proven by having to have amendment bills, particularly for the home ownership scheme, has shown they are not the oracle of knowledge when it comes to all things good and great. Some of these things are reached by consensus and exploring each other’s ideas on the way to address situations.

As I said, we support this tactical payment system because we have our men and women on the ground defending freedoms and democracies. In fact, tomorrow in Townsville, at 3rd Brigade, Lavarack Barracks, the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force will be deploying to Middle East areas of operations. Our prayers and wishes go with them—first and foremost, to look after their safety, but also to wish them well on their missions in re-establishing the community, working with the community and working with the Afghan nationals in developing their strength so that they can address the issues in relation to terrorism and start to take control of their own destiny. People need to live freely. Freedom and democracy is perhaps one of the most valuable and most cherished things that we have in this world that we live in.

I would also say to the House that we need to make sure that in allowing the tactical payment system to go ahead we have checks and balances in place—that it is not carte blanche. I respect our officers on the ground that will actually be making these decisions and I hope that they do not get too caught up in paperwork that it delays the process.

As I said right at the very beginning, the key effectiveness of this measure is the immediacy of resolution—that a person in a patrol has the financial ability and the delegated authority to address this issue, make the compensatory repayment and thus take most of the heat out of the problem. Of course, in the case of the loss of a loved one, as we know in our own lives, healing takes a long time. But when it is something like a barn, a tractor, some pigs, sheep, cattle, goats or other livestock, whatever it may be, they can be bought down at the market with the financial compensation package.

The second part of this bill addresses issues in relation to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. It was last year that this bill was brought to the parliament, and it arose from coalition policy as a means of increasing retention in defence. It came into effect on 1 July 2008, so it has been in operation for not quite a year and we do not yet know the full effectiveness of the measure as a retention scheme. We do know that listed in the budget papers this week are some facts and figures, and I note that in the net costs of providing the subsidy, after expenses and revenues, the amount apportioned for 2009-10 is $28,929,000 and that in the forward estimates for 2010-11 it is expected to be $45,336,000; for 2011-12 it is expected to be $43,972,000; and for 2012-13 it is expected to be $63,123,000. I do foreshadow for the minister that we will be putting questions on notice to determine how many loans have been provided; to look at its effects, whether there is a correlation with the retention benefit; but also, importantly, to find out what the level of interest rate subsidy on an individual basis has been for that year.

The key measure in all of this is to provide an effective means of support to the men and women of our defence forces, but there are unintentional anomalies in this scheme, and that is what this amendment seeks to address. I think that ‘unintentional anomalies’ is political code for ‘I didn’t think through the legislation properly in the first place.’ The aim of this amendment is to address the period of break in service and make sure that it is actually utilised as a retention bonus. There is a lock-off period of five years—so, if you leave the Defence Force for more than five years and then come back, your service preceding those five years does not count towards achieving this home loan subsidy. That is important at a time when we need to keep critical skills and trades in the Defence Force. Whilst it is good at times for people to move out into other areas of industry to gain new skills or further enhance their skills and education, people being away for more than five years is actually a massive loss to defence because when they come back they need to get reoriented.

As the explanatory memorandum states, the purposes of this bill are to:

remove an unintended windfall gain in the eligibility and entitlement of members who rejoined the ADF after a break in service prior to 1 July 2008;

provide greater reliability of the subsidy certificate as evidence to a home loan provider that subsidy is payable to a member by making the issue of a subsidy certificate conditional on a member having a service credit in the scheme;

ensure that only serving members who are buying a home for the first time have access to the subsidy lump sum payment option;

require that for lump sum subsidy to become payable in respect of an interest in land, the property must have been purchased subsequent to the giving of the subsidy certificate that is the basis for the lump sum requested;

clarify that subsidy may be payable either as a monthly payment or as a lump sum payment and monthly payment, and ensure that members who access the subsidy lump sum payment option retain sufficient service credit in the scheme to support on-going monthly subsidy payments;

ensure that the entitlement of subsidised borrowers who enter into a joint mortgage with a person who is not defined as a partner in the Act, is proportional to the subsidised borrowers’ liability;

clarify the entitlements of subsidised borrowers who are partners and who are both parties in respect of the same loan, in order to provide for a consistent framework for shared liability …

This scheme was well thought out in the essence of its proposal, and there was an extended period for the establishment of the legislation. There was a period for a tender process where financial institutions put forward their best cases. Thinking back to when this bill was first debated last year, I was reading it and going over some points and I went back to the Hansard of my contribution to the original second reading debate on the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008 and its consequential amendments bill. At the time, I highlighted how the government had sat on the bill for some time and then sought to introduce that bill in a great flurry prior to 1 July 2008 so the time for the scrutiny and proper examination of the bill was very much truncated. I had a bit to say on the bill and I would like to go back to what I said in Hansard, which proved that the minister had rushed it. I said:

The government have been tardy in their management of this legislation’s process. I note, for example, a letter addressed to me from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel seeking the coalition’s consent for the signing of contracts to allow the successful tenderers at least eight weeks to transition prior to the 1 July 2008 implementation date. This letter was dated 21 April. The final paragraph of that correspondence says:

Should you have any comment on the proposal I would be grateful if you could provide it to me by 17th April 2008 as Defence needs to sign the contracts in the week commencing 21st April 2008.

That letter was not even stamped or posted to me until after the contracts had to be signed. So in these great rushes we are seeing unintended consequences, and one of them is being addressed today.

I also note that basically three loan providers were successful in providing these loans: the National Australia Bank, the Australian Defence Credit Union and the Defence Force Credit Union. They are doing a good job. They are supporting our service men and women, and that is critical. But, as I said, we need to ascertain the total effectiveness of this package in relation to retention, which is what it was initially all about, because prior to this there was just the defence home loan. It was not competitive in modern times. It did not provide great incentives, but we believe this does. But it also must remain current and it must look to variations in the cost of mortgages, fluctuations in interest rates and how they affect people—whether people are locked in at an interest rate or whether they have a variable rate. It must address all of those concerns.

I dare say that in the coming 12 months we will probably see more amendments to this act, but I hope they are amendments based on need and not based on unintended consequences and a lack of forensic examination by the government of its own bills that it puts forward. As I said, we will be supporting this bill, with the exception that in the Senate we will be moving an amendment to make sure in particular that part of the tactical payment system is referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for forensic examination by that committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009. This bill has two parts. The first part deals with unfortunate happenings overseas in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor in which our men and women in the military might be involved and other spheres of military activity Australia may engage in in the future. The second aspect deals with defence home ownership and assistance given to men and women who served in the military, in the reserves and in the permanent forces. As someone whose electorate contains the RAAF base at Amberley, I am keenly interested in issues of defence and particularly in how we can help the men and women who serve our country both overseas and domestically and protect our shores—whether in the air, on land or by sea. The RAAF base at Amberley has 9FSB as well, an Army battalion, but also is getting another construction battalion as the base continues to expand. These types of things are very important to my constituents, and that is why I am pleased to speak on them.

The first aspect of the bill deals with the Defence Act 1903 and introduces a discretionary tactical payment scheme, TPS, to provide a new mechanism for making timely or expeditious no liability payments to persons adversely affected by Australian Defence Force operations outside of Australia. We have in Australian law systems of no liability compensation in WorkCover and workers compensation and ex gratia payments in circumstances where people have been victims of crime. So it is common in Australian law for people to receive payments where they suffer injury, illness or damage in circumstances where there is no actual liability admitted or agreed to in the circumstances. The concept of a no liability payment is not at all foreign to Australian law. As someone who has practised as a litigation lawyer, particularly in areas of personal injuries and crime, I am familiar with these types of compensation. Many times I have stood before medical tribunals on workers compensation matters and argued cases in relation to matters where people were injured at work. I am familiar with that.

I am very pleased the government has done this. Our men and women in Afghanistan and other places are fighting to protect our rights and our liberties. The challenges our forces face against Islamic fascism in places like Afghanistan are incalculable; the challenges are dreadful and they put their lives on the line all the time. In war we saw 20 million Russians killed in World War II. Many were civilians who were innocent of any involvement in communism, fascism or any kind of activity at all. They were killed in those circumstances. In Vietnam many men and women injured through no fault of their own; they were entirely innocent of the events. There are things that happen which are totally unintended. They are tragic to the families. They might destroy an individual’s livelihood; they might destroy the capacity of an individual to live the kind of functional life that we accept as normal. Particularly in Third World countries, damage to property or injury where there is not a compensation scheme and not the medical treatment and help that we in a First World country think is appropriate is devastating to the lives of families. In a lot of cultures there is an expectation that there be some form of compensation, and I think that is appropriate in the circumstances.

If you want to build relationships with local communities, you really need to ensure that there is safety and security for our ADF personnel and we need to make sure that we build those relationships by acting in an honourable, dignified and fair and just way. Making small, timely and expeditious capped payments is a good way in the circumstances to ensure there is trust and amity between our forces overseas and the residents of those countries. Relying on act of grace payments is not the way to go, and there have been in the past criticisms of Australia’s position on this matter. We have not made the kinds of condolence and other ex gratia payments that the Americans have, and I know comments on this matter have been made by very senior members of the military and other interested parties who have commentated on this.

We have relied on section 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, which provides a legislative basis for an act of grace payment where the finance minister considers it appropriate to do so because of special circumstances. In 2007-08, three act of grace payments were made totalling just over $81,000. The amount for the previous year totalled nearly $200,000, when 14 payments were made. It really beggars belief that there were not other circumstances where people should have been compensated. The capacity to determine who should receive payments on the ground and at a lower level would be the way to go, and I am pleased that we are doing this. But we need to have some degree of consistency in the decision making. In the area of compensation, if you injure your arm or your leg or receive some sort of illness or injury, there is a degree of jurisprudence or commonality in terms of how much is paid because it is set out in regulations. Every case is different—every case for every individual and every circumstance is different; every culture in every country is different. I would like to think that we could have some degree of consistency so that if it was a particularly poor country, we would provide the people in that country with a fair and equitable payment in the circumstances.

The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, in his second reading speech on 18 March 2009 said:

In many areas in which the ADF operates, the expectation of financial compensation for collateral damage to property, injury or loss of life is often a common aspect of local cultures.

…            …            …

… experience in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that the administrative requirements involved in making an act of grace claim make that system unsuitable for use in operational environments.

I say amen to that—he is absolutely correct in the circumstances. Anyone who does not receive payment in a timely way can suffer aggravated injury, illness or loss of property. Someone’s livelihood could depend on a certain tractor, implement or shop or whatever. If that was damaged and the person did not receive a payment, their economic loss may be aggravated. This is good legislation and I think it will help our men and women serving overseas. I think it is the right and honourable thing to do as a country in the circumstances to provide for our neighbours. If we are to be good Samaritans, if we are to care for our fellow human beings who inhabit this planet, we have to do the right thing by them as well. I think in the circumstances we need to do this, and I am pleased the government have chosen to do so.

The second aspect of this bill deals with the men and women who serve in the military, particularly in the bases across Australia, whether in Townsville, Darwin, Ipswich or wherever. In my electorate, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme has been warmly welcomed by the men and women who serve at RAAF Base Amberley. I spoke to many of them when I did my parliamentary service last year at Amberley—I spoke to hundreds of them at that time. Many of them shop in places like the Yamanto shopping centre, where I have a mobile office on a regular basis. Many of them live in Flinders View, a suburb of Ipswich, where I live. Providing household assistance is really important.

These people live in what I would describe as middle-class suburbs in Ipswich. We have provided better housing for them. It is tragic that in decades past they were provided with what I would describe as appalling kinds of residences. They were not treated with the respect I think they deserved. Some of the women to whom I have spoken who followed their husbands and partners around Australia had to live in appalling accommodation. Governments of both sides have tried to show a degree of concern for the families of defence personnel, and I think that is good. I think it is the right thing to do in all the circumstances. In my electorate, we are providing tremendous housing for our military families. For example, as part of the defence housing initiative in the recent Nation Building and Jobs Plan, 133 new houses have been built in Ipswich at a cost of $36.3 million. That is tremendous for the local people. Many of these houses are not far from where I live.

I was talking to the men and women of RAAF Base Amberley, and they commended the government for the home loan subsidy scheme for eligible ADF members. It is a major initiative of the Rudd government to recruit new people and retain our men and women in the military. I had the privilege, on the first day I was doing the parliamentary program last year, to meet a fellow who told me, as we were in the back of a C17 plane, that in fact that was the reason he was staying in the military—to get the assistance, because it helped him with the house he owned in Ipswich. I thought it was fantastic that, on the first day I was there, I spoke to someone who said that to me.

The assistance is quite considerable. The subsidy at tier 1 is up to $203 a month, going up to a maximum subsidy of $406 a month at tier 3. That is a lot of money in anyone’s language. Certainly that goes a long way to helping the men and women of our military to provide suitable accommodation for themselves and their families, particularly their children. We know that, if our children do not grow up in an environment where they feel that they can honour the property and in which they live, they tend to not respect it. We see that commonly in our society. So this is a good way to treat our military families with respect and dignity.

But there have been some unintended consequences. The legislation here seeks to remove a windfall gain and assist in the promotion of retention and recruitment. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel said in his speech on 18 March 2009 that the take-up in relation to the defence housing initiative of the Rudd government has been quite extraordinary. As at 28 February 2009, the scheme administrator, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, had issued 11,255 subsidy certificates to eligible ADF members. Of these ADF members, 5,197 had commenced receipt of the subsidy assistance in taking up a mortgage provided by a member of the home loan provider panel. The ADF member feedback indicates the scheme is having a positive influence on retention. Certainly anecdotally in Ipswich that has been my experience as well.

Some changes were needed to improve the eligibility and entitlement of members who rejoined the ADF after a break in service prior to 1 July 2008. The measure will ensure that members who rejoined the ADF prior to 1 July 2008 are provided with the same eligibility and entitlement as those who rejoin after that date. The member for Paterson went through these changes in detail and, in the circumstances, I do not wish to go through them again. He has already adequately outlined them. I do say this: it is important to get this thing right so that only those who are eligible are entitled and so that this measure really acts as a stimulus, a catalyst, for recruitment and retention. I commend the minister for fixing this anomaly.

This help for our military people in Blair is a consequence of our commitment to their families as well. Financial assistance is important. The kind of environment they have at home should be replicated in the kind of environment they work in every day. So I am pleased that the government has taken positive steps to respond to the white paper. We are receiving assistance in terms of new planes at RAAF Base Amberley. The Hornets are coming. We announced that last year. The F111s are retiring, after 40 years of service. They are nicknamed the ‘flying pigs’ and are much loved by the people in my electorate. It is sad they are going, but they have served our country well, and the personnel there have been part of our community for decades. We look forward to the Super Hornets coming to Amberley, of course.

Defence was a big winner, and the people in Blair will likely receive considerable assistance. The RAAF base at Amberley, which I have mentioned before, is the workplace for the people who use the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, and we are seeing a major upgrade as a result of the budget announcements. We saw announced in Queensland $536.7 million in defence infrastructure. We announced $60 million in my electorate for work on the $331.5 million RAAF Base Amberley Redevelopment Stage 3 project, and I am very pleased about that. It will provide trainee facilities, live-in accommodation, medical and working accommodation, maintenance facilities, a fuel farm and upgraded base security. Key facilities will be completed progressively from 2010 to 2011. That is where the people who enjoy the benefits of this scheme will work.

I see the member for Herbert is here. The RAAF base at Amberley will be the biggest base in the country as a result of the redevelopment, but Townsville will also receive money. I am pleased to say the Rudd government has provided assistance to Townsville. I will outline that to him in case he wants to know. There will be $18 million in 2009-10 for the RAAF base at Amberley and RAAF Base Townsville for the $268.2 million Heavy Airlift Capability Permanent Facilities project. We are providing assistance across the whole country, regardless of the electorate in which the military base is located, because we think this is necessary to provide infrastructure to places like Townsville, Edinburgh, Darwin, Pearce and others. In the circumstances, the government is strongly committed to the military. We have guaranteed defence spending in the future. We believe strongly that our defence challenges are significant. We live in an area where there is substantial instability.

The defence white paper delivered recently gave us a great challenge and a great reminder of the need to fund the military adequately and appropriately and also the need to look at savings across the decade. It is important that we deliver about $20 billion in savings across that time, and we need to reinvest our thinking and our funding into defence programs and capability acquisitions that will enhance our capacity as an island continent. Certainly the Navy will be the big winner as a result of the white paper and our government’s response, but the aircraft that we are going to deliver to our RAAF bases and personnel will also make a big difference to our defence capability.

We spend enormous amounts of money on the military, and so we should in the circumstances. We are a middle power. Our men and women should have the kind of equipment that will enable them to do their tasks well and efficiently wherever they are assigned by the government of the day, and their families at home should be looked after in terms of defence housing, ownership, financial support and medical support. In all those circumstances, I commend these initiatives to the House, and I thank the government for their commitment to the defence of Australia, both nationally and locally in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland.

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

Before the member for Blair leaves, I think I need to put some things on the public record which both he and I will agree on. Both of us are very proud of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force in our electorate. We both have very significant defence installations in our electorates. Both of us have both Army and Air Force elements in our electorate, but the ratio in Townsville is the reverse of Ipswich. In relation to the scale of things, Amberley is quite small compared to Townsville. There may be something in the order of 2½ thousand people at Amberley—perhaps a few more—but there are 6,000 in Townsville. Townsville will remain the pre-eminent military base in the country, and long may that be the case—particularly as we are about to grow even bigger with the arrival of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, which is being transferred from Holsworthy up to 3rd Brigade in Townsville. They are already commanded by 3rd Brigade, but they will now be co-located with 3rd Brigade headquarters in the city. That will mean even more defence homes, which the Rudd government has funded in Townsville. These would have been funded under a coalition government, because all of that was locked in. It will also mean a further upgrade of the RAAF base.

Of course, we are also upgrading the port. In the budget this year there is an amount of about $30 million to upgrade the Townsville port so that we can have the new LHD ships dock in Townsville. They are just humongous ships. Of course, their customer is the 3rd Brigade, so when 3rd Brigade deploys in the marine environment it will go on the LHDs when they are built. I should also advise the parliament that tomorrow there will be a major parade in Townsville. Nine hundred and ten soldiers will be on parade. Just being a bit parochial, I do not think RAAF Amberley could put 910 airmen on parade in one go. Certainly in Townsville we can put 910 soldiers on parade. The Minister for Defence and I will be attending that parade tomorrow to honour our soldiers who are being deployed to Afghanistan.

Of course, that introduces the connection to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009 before the parliament today: the soldiers who go to Afghanistan will face the issue that part of this bill seeks to address, which is the tactical payments scheme. For example, we look at Afghanistan and ask: ‘What is the solution to that ugly war? What is going to solve it?’ The answer in the long term is winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghanis. It is not whether your gun is bigger than somebody else’s gun or whether you can kill more people than somebody else; it is whether you carry the people of the country with you. There are a whole range of mechanisms by which you can address that particular issue. Our Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force is very important in addressing that issue. Our training teams are very important in looking after the Afghanis. Of course, our special forces are very important in making sure that the bad guys are effectively dealt with.

But in some of those operations there are unintended consequences. People’s homes and businesses can be affected by the war. It may be accidental. The lives of civilians can be lost; families can lose a loved one. Interestingly, in a place like Afghanistan, losing an animal may, in fact, be more devastating than losing a relative. Camels can have a higher value than a human in some of these places. But the point is that, if the ADF is empowered to immediately be able to redress those kinds of issues, we do not lose the hearts and minds of the local population. Yes, it is traumatic if they lose their home through demolition by a bomb blast, a rocket that does not go in the right direction or for whatever reason. Yes, it is traumatic if they lose a loved one. But in part we can compensate for that, and the quicker we can do it the better. That is why the coalition certainly supports the government’s initiative to empower people of lieutenant colonel rank and above to authorise the payment of compensation in theatre, on the ground and immediately. It is a good outcome.

However, something that has concerned us—and I think it has concerned the government because we have been talking about it, and I believe that the government will support the coalition—is the reporting to the parliament on the operation of this amendment. We think it is important that there be a mechanism where you can report to the parliament who was compensated, what the amount was and in what circumstances. We think there should be an accountability mechanism. I think there may well be an amendment moved to this bill in the Senate in due course—and I think it will be moved with the support of the government—requiring Defence, perhaps on an annual basis, to report back to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence in summary form on the number of incidents, who was compensated and why they were compensated. In that way, the parliament can keep a supervisory eye on what is happening and pick up if there are any difficulties with, or consequences of, the operation of this legislation. This is a way to keep the respect of the people who are affected by war activities, and I think we will all support it.

The amendment to the Defence Homeownership Assistance Scheme Act was originally introduced by the former government and is supported by the Rudd government, because we want to make sure that our people are properly looked after and we want to make sure that this can be used as a retention initiative. The member for Blair was quite correct when he indicated that it is certainly working as a retention initiative. It is very generous. I myself think that the panel of providers should be expanded, but that is a debate for another forum. The coalition, in principle, believes that no member of the Defence Force should be disadvantaged in any area because of their service in the Defence Force. Addressing that is a really big picture item because you can look at employment, you can look at education issues and you can look at homeownership issues. That is why, with the way we post people around the country and the way they continually move, they need to have a home they can call their own. Because of the special circumstances of Defence, they need assistance through the Defence Homeownership Assistance Scheme. That is why it is important, if any inconsistencies are found, or any unintended consequences are found, that they in fact be addressed.

That is what this particular amendment does. They are technical amendments, but members of the Defence Force will of course warmly appreciate that this is being done. Tomorrow, I will certainly tell the soldiers what has been discussed here in the parliament today, and they will know, understand and appreciate the effort that both sides of the parliament are putting into supporting the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. I certainly associate myself with this legislation and indicate my strong support.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay for his contribution. I know that he cares passionately about both his constituents and defence matters. Those two matters often intersect. I also am pleased to speak in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009. Before I do so, I just want to digress and say a special thankyou to the hosts who looked after me out at Amberley Air Base as part of the parliamentary placement program, particularly Air Commodore Sowade and all of his staff who looked after me and took me on a wonderful flight that was especially enjoyable in a C-17 on the last day. They put me through lots of wonderful experiences and I just want to pass on my thanks to them.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you still looking white?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They certainly took me on an interesting flight—that is for sure. I did not realise that a plane so big could fly so low to the ground or so spectacularly. But I return to the legislation before us. The purpose of this bill is twofold. Firstly, it is to introduce a tactical payment scheme for people adversely affected by the Australian Defence Force operations overseas and, secondly, it is to improve the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. I will discuss the new tactical payment scheme first. This new scheme will compensate people who are injured or affected by ADF operations outside Australia. According to international law and for the sake of human decency, Australia observes an absolute prohibition on the intentional targeting of civilians in armed conflict. As a party to the Geneva convention and additional protocol 1, Australia makes every effort to avoid military operations that are likely to result in incidental civilian casualties. However, we know that, while every effort is made to avoid it, tragically civilians do sometimes unfortunately suffer harm and death and damage is done to property in the course of military operations. That is one of the tragic costs of war and armed conflicts.

While a number of act of grace payments have been made to civilians following loss and damage, Australia has no formal compensation scheme in place. Instead, payments have been considered more on a case by case basis and require the approval of both the defence and the finance minister. The administrative requirements for these payments are cumbersome and not suitable to the immediate needs on the ground in conflict situations abroad. They are much too laborious. I am advised that $266,000 has been paid to Iraqi civilians in act of grace payments and that last financial year alone Defence paid out $81,000 in act of grace payments. But this process is time consuming, ad hoc and inconsistent.

Our defence forces have learned from East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan that civilians generally expect to be compensated for damage to property, injury or loss of life. When this does not happen or when there are significant delays in providing payment, it can have a negative impact on the ADF’s relationship with local communities, which in turn can place their defence personnel at greater risk. When our armed forces are serving overseas, they are there to bring security and stability to a region or community, to help build capacity and to protect the most vulnerable. This bill ensures that when there are adverse outcomes for civilians they will be compensated. The tactical payments scheme will enable Defence to quickly respond to damage or loss by making payments to civilians who have suffered personal or property damage. Payments will be capped at $250,000 and the scheme will not completely replace act of grace payments, which will still be an option.

This scheme will help further the reputation of Australian defence personnel working overseas. It already has a wonderful reputation, but this will enhance that reputation. The last thing we want is for civilian losses to be written off as collateral damage and forgotten. While we strive to avoid civilian loss and damage, Australia must do what it can to support and protect the local communities which we have become a part of through military operations. As several of the previous speakers mentioned, it is by winning the hearts and minds of these people that we will actually win these military operations.

This bill also amends theDefence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008. The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme was set up in July last year to help serving ADF members to buy their first home. The scheme is a carrot for young recruits and also a retention tool to encourage members to stay with the ADF, as they receive greater assistance the longer they serve. And it has been successful, with more than 11,000 already approved for subsidies. Successful members are provided with a subsidy certificate as evidence to the bank when applying for a loan. It is very practical assistance. However, the amendments in this bill are about eliminating a number of unintended outcomes. For example, it makes minor amendments to the service eligibility for the loan subsidy. Some members were able to claim more than intended under the scheme if they rejoined the ADF after a break in service prior to 1 July 2008. The amendments ensure that members are subsidised the same whether they rejoined the ADF before or after 1 July 2008.

Further, the bill makes certain that a subsidy certificate is conditional on a member having service credit, thereby providing greater proof to a home loan provider that a subsidy is payable. This bill clarifies that only those members who are buying a home for the first time, while a member of the ADF, have access to the subsidy lump sum payment option. It also clarifies that the subsidy may be payable monthly or as a lump sum payment. The bill ensures that the entitlement of subsidised borrowers who enter into a joint mortgage with a person who is not defined as a partner in the act is proportional to the subsidised borrower’s liability—common sense.

As I mentioned previously, this scheme is a shot in the arm for Defence Force recruitment, with more than 11,000 members signing up for the loan subsidy already. It is not uncommon for schemes like this to require some tweaking around the edges as some of the technicalities are worked out in practice. The amendments before the House are important because they will help ensure this scheme remains a viable and effective recruitment and retention tool for the ADF into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009 is important legislation as it adds opportunities and gives encouragement, if you like, to our defence forces in a couple of important areas. In reference to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme in particular, I did serve a period as shadow minister for defence personnel and the issue arose of persons regularly on transfer and their consequent inability to purchase a home. Let me say that, of all the issues that one must look at in a person’s retirement, the ownership of a home is fundamental. For those who have not acquired a home before they have retired, for whatever reason, we know that their future is much constrained in terms of a fair and reasonable retirement—notwithstanding rental assistance and other matters. Defence Force personnel, by the simple nature of their employment, frequently missed out on a home. Of course, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme has contributed substantially to their overcoming that particular disadvantage. These good measures, which finetune that process, are to be welcomed.

The other matter in which I have a very great interest, as I constantly read in the media of our involvement in these particular nations, is where we are dealing with insurgents, where we are dealing with people who do not wear a uniform. I have read that the job of the lady who was arrested was to have women raped so that they would be so embarrassed and cast aside, as unfortunately they do in the culture of these people—if you get raped it was your fault—that, in their disillusioned sense, they would put an explosive belt on and go and blow people up. For that one woman, who has now been arrested, that was her job. I think they said at the time that 40 or so women had been conscripted and had lost their lives in this fashion.

So it is not a war like the ones for which many of our defence forces in the past were trained for. You could easily identify your opponent. I remember well that in the Second World War I thought the Germans were obliged to wear that funny helmet because that identified them so that we could shoot them. The fact was that it was a much more efficient type of helmet. In fact, as a little kid I thought ‘German’ was a bad word. I thought they actually called themselves ‘Australians’ because that was a good word. Many of you did not experience the publicity and the way we were all fed at that time, but the point I make is that you did at least know your enemy. I support this administrative measure that accommodates an aspect of Middle East culture where, if you shoot someone, you pay them for it. That is part of their culture. It is a questionable practice, but if it allows for the eventual democratisation and a better life for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq—and it now appears the people of Pakistan—then it is good policy. And the world has apparently learned that you can buy someone’s life.

My purpose for speaking in this debate is to express my grave fears about constant press references to pursuing some of our defence force personnel who apparently shoot an ‘innocent’ person. Again, we are going to persecute some of our defence personnel. If a member of a defence force—and examples have been given of others, not our people—enters a premises for the purpose of raping the women in that particular household and then shoots them so they cannot tell the story, that is a crime by any standard and should be punished accordingly. But there appears to be a fine line in this regard with the shooting of a 12-year-old. Why is that, Chair? He was holding a hand grenade and was just about to chuck it at our people. If that had been a false hand grenade, was it the responsibility of our soldiers to find that out first? I do not think so. I think it is a very significant issue of morality that we have to decide those things.

I get angry when we persecute people who volunteer and are sent to very hostile and very difficult environments and who have to decide who they shoot a rocket at, which house they have to blow up and who might be inside the house. There is criticism that quite often the party shooting at them is in a house but that women and children are also in the house—they might be there very reluctantly. This is common practice apparently. What are our defence force people to do? Do they say, ‘We’ll just stand up and let them shoot us because we can’t do anything about it.’ I know the rules of engagement are supposed to cover such matters, but the media in particular want to engage in what I call the flagellation of our defence forces.

While this bill deals specifically with an aspect of that—insurgents and circumstances where property or lives are lost; apparently in some cultures things can always be settled with money, and there may be sense in that—are we going to continue to persecute our own people in these circumstances? These issues are very hard to define. In a split second they have to decide whether the 12-year-old kid is carrying a real grenade. I always come down on the side of the soldier and with the members of our defence forces. I do not think we should put them in uniform and send them to very difficult areas and then persecute them in these circumstances.

This sort of thing started in Vietnam. It is the same thing: know your enemy. Since we have been involved in these sorts of civil wars and in areas of insurgency, it has become extremely difficult for our people. I am sure much of the mental trauma visited upon our defence force personnel in this day and age is relevant to that: knowing your enemy, knowing where you can go, knowing where you can socialise. These are very serious issues. I think we have to be terribly careful that we do not let an excessive moral position override the great difficulty our people face. They cannot say: ‘Sorry we made a mistake. Let’s shake hands.’ They are dealing with matters that involve their own lives. It may be a 12-year-old sitting there with a mobile phone waiting for you to walk past a roadside bomb. It may be a house—and such a case has involved great controversy—next to a roadside bomb, yet the occupants were considered innocent. They might have been frightened but they were not innocent. Someone must have come along with a shovel and been seen by people on the side of the road digging a hole in the ground for what was a substantially sized device. A group of soldiers drove past—I think they were Americans—and some were blown up. They turned to that house as the probable point of detonation and shot some people. Of course they are all to go to jail for that.

Excuse me! I do not know how you make those judgments, but I do not think members of the Defence Force should be found responsible for mistakes of that nature. I can differentiate between a deliberate attack—shooting people to hide a disgraceful act maybe—and when you are on patrol and you are confronted by a 12-year-old kid with something in his hand which turns out to be a grenade. I think you have got to be excused for the action you take thereafter in that sort of case. I give that one as an example, I do not think that will become an issue because the kid did have a grenade. One might wonder what we would be trying to do to our people at this stage if it had been a toy. If the House has not considered that particular point, I hope it will do so in the future.

It is very difficult, but it is totally wrong to send people overseas and say, ‘It’ll be all your fault if you get it wrong, mate.’ I cannot believe that we parliamentarians, as the responsible parties, should ever take that view. We have got to err on the side of our own people because of the circumstances they are in and the pressure they are under. Otherwise, Mr Chairman, I think this is sensible legislation. It is interesting that we have now virtually legitimised money in a brown paper bag, but there is a requirement that we have a more efficient administrative arrangement to do something we are doing already. I guess that to say to the average Afghan, ‘We will get you an act of grace payment and all you have to do is fill in 55 forms,’ would not impress them at the time of their personal loss.

This is pragmatic and sensible but, more importantly, the bill also deals with a very positive component. In my state we have got submarines on the beach because it is no longer attractive for people to take that job at that wage. As I mentioned earlier, in my time as the shadow minister women told me that they were virtually forcing their husbands to go into the submariner class because the cheapest place to buy a house in Australia at the time was down near the Stirling base in the southern suburbs of Perth. A brand-new house and land under $200,000 was commonplace. That was partly because of a man called Len Buckeridge, who is hated by the CFMEU and who is the biggest home builder in Australia. He has made home building efficient and has now vertically integrated his construction business—we have just assisted him in getting a brickworks. He now makes just about everything he puts into a house and he has kept the price competitively low in WA, even in the present environment. People were going there for that purpose and there has been some balance in that but, above all, people who are in the permanent defence forces must acquire a home, they must have the right to rent it when they get transferred and they must be assisted in that matter. They have got to be able to retire with a place they can live in, and it should be debt free at that time. This is a good measure as it intends to improve that.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I just point out that we have had a strict budget, but we are still the Speaker’s panel, not the Chair’s panel. I am a member of the Speaker’s panel, not a chairperson.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I will say, ‘Thank you, Mr Member of the Speaker’s panel.’

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The chair recognises the member for Wakefield.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Chair.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may be so bold as to offer the member for O’Connor some advice about reading material: he should read Philip Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect, which talks a bit about people’s brain functions when they are placed in extreme situations. It is a very interesting book and you may find it informing.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ran a pub for years, and I was in that situation every evening!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009, which introduces amendments with two commendable policy objectives. The first is to ensure the safety and security of our Defence Force in the field. The second involves provisions for their access to housing back home in Australia. Both are important administrative amendments which will have a big impact on the lives of our ADF personnel.

The first amendment introduced by this bill involves the Tactical Payment Scheme, or TPS. This scheme will provide new, efficient and effective means for making quick, no-liability payments to persons who have suffered damage, injury or loss due to the activities of the ADF abroad. The necessity for such a scheme reflects Australia’s approach to treating all people with common decency as well as respecting the customs of the local communities we are operating within. The TPS acknowledges that, where the ADF causes damage to property or injury to local people, we have a responsibility to offer some form of compensation. Often that compensation will be financial. This is not just the right thing to do; it also benefits the security of our forces. Recognising the unintended damage that ADF actions can sometimes cause will ensure that relationships with local communities remain intact. You cannot fight an insurgency or a guerrilla war or provide security in civil conflicts unless you have the consent of the community you are operating within. That has been proven in many different wars over the last 100 years. Strong relationships with local communities enhance the safety of ADF personnel and provide possible strategic advantages in operating in those conflicts.

The current arrangements for offering this type of compensation are covered by the act of grace provisions under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and that provides for a payment to be made where the government has no legal liability but accepts responsibility for some damage caused. As the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel explained in his second reading speech, the TPS was developed in response to lessons learned in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor. Our recent experiences in these conflict zones showed that the current administrative arrangements for making act of grace payments were inappropriate, given the time pressures that exist in operational environments. We cannot expect people to go through lengthy processes—processes that they would be completely unfamiliar with. Obviously, this is especially true where the payments costs are small—particularly from our perspective—but where the damage is perceived in the local community as being great. Small delays in making such payments have immediate negative impacts on our relationship with the local community. Small delays aid our enemies in these climates, who use such incidents to undermine our consent to operate within the community. They undermine all the previous good work we may have done. So a delay in redress for damage done obviously affects the security of our personnel and undermines our operational objectives.

To counter this, the TPS will operate independently from the act of grace payment provisions as a separate discretionary mechanism, managed and operated by the Department of Defence. There will be a cap on payments under this scheme. A range of criteria will be considered, including the prevailing culture and society of the area in which the compensation is required. As payments under this scheme have been capped, the ADF will continue to have recourse to the act of grace provisions if a particularly large or unusual payment is required. Importantly for the people affected by these actions, their acceptance of TPS or the act of grace compensation will not necessarily preclude future legal action if they have a case to make in that circumstance.

The introduction of the TPS is a simple administrative amendment that will improve our relationship with communities in which our forces serve. It will simultaneously improve the safety and security of our Defence men and women. Finally, it will assist our operational objectives in these conflicts.

The second important measure in this bill amends the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008, which provides a legislative basis for the operation of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. This scheme was introduced last year to encourage the retention of ADF personnel. DHOAS provides eligible ADF members with home ownership assistance and is responsive to changes in the housing market. It recognises the difficulties that ADF members may have in purchasing a home due to the nature of their career in the military and it provides increased assistance to those people. The scheme provides flexibility and choice to ADF members through a panel of home loan providers. As of February this year, the scheme has over 5,000 ADF members receiving subsidy assistance.

While the scheme has been tremendously successful, and I know many of my constituents have taken advantage of the scheme, I guess there were some unintended outcomes in that original bill. This administrative act removes windfall gains in the eligibility and entitlement for members who rejoined the ADF after a break in service prior to 1 July 2008. This measure will ensure that members who rejoin the ADF, no matter when they rejoin, have the same access and the same rights and benefits. The bill also clarifies that if ADF service personnel take a break in their service that is greater than five years then their previous service is not eligible for consideration as part of that person’s proof of their right of access to DHOAS. The same test will apply to reserve service personnel but with a two-year break constituting the test for consideration of previous service. This reinforces the aim of the program, which is to encourage retention of Defence personnel. It would be unfair to make such arrangements retrospective, and that means that any member who currently receives access to the subsidy based on the previous provision will not have that benefit removed. I think that is a fair and reasonable approach by the government.

The bill also makes amendments to focus the benefit to those who need it the most. Access to lump sum payments is an enormous benefit when organising the purchase of a new property, especially for a first-time buyer. That is why under this bill only ADF members who are buying a home for the first time will have access to the subsidy lump sum payment option. And in recognition of the reality that many personnel want to buy a house with their partner, the bill also changes the treatment of the shared liability for a loan. The entitlement of a subsidised borrower who enters into a joint loan with a person who is not defined as a partner in the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 is calculated as proportional to the subsidised borrower’s liability. The amendments will also clarify the entitlements where both partners are Defence Force members and so both are entitled to a subsidised loan. This clarification includes entitlements on the death of one of the partners, allowing partners together to maximise the amount of subsidy payable in respect of a loan to which they are both parties. These changes bring the legislative scheme in line with the original policy intent of the DHOAS scheme and establish a consistent framework for the calculation of the subsidy where there is more than one party to the loan.

I have come in contact with many defence force families since I was elected. One of the things that becomes really apparent is that many of the families echo the commitment, service and sacrifice of ADF personnel. I think these families give a great deal to the service of the nation. ADF members may be volunteers but the families, in many ways, are conscripted to the cause as well. They support the ADF, the personnel and the ethos of the service. That said, I do not think that that commitment is always matched by the attitude of the defence hierarchy, which is not as family friendly as it could be or should be. I think bills of this nature do help with retention of personnel and help families, but so much of the way families are treated is administrative and decisions are made by particular people. I think the more family friendly the ADF becomes, the more likely it is to retain valuable and longstanding personnel.

The member for O’Connor talked about submarine staff. I think the greatest pressure for submariners is that they are away for six months and they are uncontactable for that time. In those situations it is a pretty tough thing for the partners, the wives and the families of those ADF personnel. I think the more help we give the family, the more likely we are to retain the personnel in active service. If we care for the family, we are much more likely to retain the soldier, the airman and the sailor in service to this country.

This bill contains two very different but two very valuable policy objectives. The first area reaffirms our common decency in responding to the unintended damage caused by our forces in these very complex situations, these very dynamic theatres of war and civil conflict. The second area of the bill focuses on the defence home ownership scheme, which is not only an incredibly important policy in retention terms but also a great benefit to defence force personnel. I think those objectives have really good short-term, medium-term and long-term impacts on the safety, the security and the size of our defence forces, and I commend the bill to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief in my contribution to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009 and will not talk at all about the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme because I think it has general support in this chamber. For anyone who knows parliamentary history, having two so distinct aspects of legislative reform in the one bill is almost borderline tacking. Certainly, as far as the home ownership scheme is concerned, it looks to be a sensible reform.

I want to speak on this legislation in relation to the tactical payment scheme. Whilst not opposing it through this chamber, it certainly raises several questions in my mind. The first is these broad and sweeping references to the problems with the act of grace. I would love to hear from the minister, in reply, in detail as to exactly what those problems are and with regard to the slowness of payment and the inappropriateness of that scheme in meeting the needs of operational matters for Defence. To me, it looks odd to be setting up a parallel scheme which is discretionary and which, by the look of it, removes any civilian transparency in this process and treats payments as matters of an operational nature rather than of a management nature. In my view, it should have a civilian element attached to it, and that civilian element is a minister with those discretionary powers.

This is the question I would like the minister, or whoever is going to respond on behalf of government, to respond to: exactly what, in detail, are the problems with the act of grace process for these issues that have been put in this bill and exactly why, in detail, can’t that act of grace process be tightened up so that it does meet the cultural or community interests of the various Australian operational forces, wherever they are located? For me, that is the first question that jumps out.

The second is the reporting and transparency issues. They do reflect on that. I know it is an ongoing debate, and tension goes on between civilian and non-civilian masters within Defence regardless of who is in government, but it has already been picked up by one speaker—I think it was the member for O’Connor—who used the reference about brown paper bags being formalised. There is a danger in not having very strict and clear guidelines and very strict, clear and transparent parameters, because if any of us in this place or any member of the community wanted to know exactly who got which payments, or where and why, then those questions could not be very easily answered by Defence, by the minister and by the parliament.

It seems odd that that is not included in this bill and in this legislative process. We are being asked in good faith to rely on guidelines being put in place in the future by the Department of Defence, which look—and I may have missed it—as though they remove the discretionary authority of a minister in the chair. I think that has inherent dangers attached to it that have already been expressed by one speaker with the colloquialism of ‘brown paper bags being formalised’. I hope that will be considered and will be responded to by the minister—or whoever is responding—as to what exactly the guidelines are, what the reporting processes are and how transparent this is going to be. Will we now see these acts of grace being removed from ministerial discretion and shifted from a management role to an operational role? I would be deeply concerned if that is happening, because going along with that will be a lack of transparency and accountability to the community.

Whilst I do not oppose this legislation, and certainly I understand the reasons given in the briefs, there are some red flags and red lights going off in regard to the reporting, the management and the accountability trail. I hope I am wrong, and I await a response from government to confirm that I am wrong. If not, this has problems attached to it. I have heard from previous speakers here who are flying the freedom and peace flag. From my point of view, you get freedom and peace by being as transparent and as accountable as possible. That is the safe port for all of us in a western, free democracy. If this is an exercise in denying information to the broader community then it has inherent problems attached to it.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the legislation that is before us today, Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2009, I want to make a few comments and particularly comment on the tactical payment scheme that forms part of the discussion. What is being introduced here is, I believe, a much more transparent system than the one that has existed up until this point in time whereby any compensation we have been paying is via an act of grace. We have seen many instances of Defence Force personnel and government ministers actually obfuscating about the quantum and to whom these payments have been made, on the grounds that to do so could place people in danger or establish a market for compensation payments. I recall from one newspaper clipping, which I have not brought with me today, that the former government actually declared that these payments were not compensation but that they were payments that it was morally obliged to make. That newspaper article was dealing with the payment made to the family of an individual who had been shot dead by Australian troops for not heeding their call to pay attention. I understand the troops feared that the individual was preparing to attack their quarters. Further on in that article is some discussion about payments made to people who had been wounded by actions taken by Australian troops.

The reality is that the tactical payment scheme is going to be small payments—I think a cap has been mentioned of a sum that most people would not consider small, but in the circumstances they are small payments—that are able to be made quickly. Members of this place who have lived in countries where there is a culture of compensation for harm that has been done to people will understand that that expeditious nature, that timely nature, of making a compensation payment is particularly vital in terms of retaining the respect and the goodwill of the people who are being compensated.

These condolence payments or property payments that we will be making are going to be very important in the context of what we now see as modern warfare. Long gone are the days where there were battlefields. Long gone are the days when the kings would sit on the hill and watch their armies approach each other in the valley. At the end of the day there would be a winner decided and the kings would depart back to their castles to lick their wounds or pat themselves on the back for having a wonderful day. Those days are no longer with us. Today the warlike experiences that our troops are facing are much more akin to guerrilla activity—house skirmishes. Who knows where the guerrilla activity is going to come from? Our troops cannot select the theatre in which they have to engage with an enemy.

We are now in a situation where, unlike previous eras’ wars, there is not a country-versus-country situation. Not all of the citizens of Iraq, where we have been until recently, or Afghanistan, where we are currently, oppose our presence there. In fact, we are increasingly engaging in what could be termed civil wars. We need the support, our troops need the support, of the civilian population in the areas where they are. And by being able to retain their respect and their goodwill through the payment of payments such as we are talking about, we will be able to ensure their safety as best we can. That retention of goodwill is important.

I have just a few moments left. I would like to mention the changes that are being made in this legislation to defence housing. There are two aspects to this legislation, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker: the compensation style payments and the defence housing. Having spent my youth as a member of a family of a banker who transferred quite frequently from place to place, I understand the situation for military families who have postings in different areas and the fact that it is very difficult for them to be able to purchase a house anywhere. The provisions of the defence housing subsidy scheme, as we see it now, are excellent. The changes that we are making remove some unintended consequences of the introduction of the scheme last year and clarify some aspects of it. It is my understanding that all of these are beneficial to members of the defence forces and it is worthy and proper that we should reward them in this particular way.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.