Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to address an issue which affects Albany, a port on the southern coast of Western Australia. The issue goes to the heart of this small community of some 28,000 people. It is also, unfortunately, an issue that highlights Defence’s disregard for important local concerns. The issue is the clean-up of Albany’s Princess Royal Harbour from old, dumped ordnance dating back to the days of World War II. It should have been resolved between the government and Albany Port Authority many years ago.

The ordnance in the harbour clearly belongs to the Commonwealth. But Defence’s approach to this issue is the same as it is with many other matters, including military justice. Its approach is adversarial. It has thrown good money after bad trying to defend the indefensible and, in doing so, has made this something of a David and Goliath battle.

It has even incurred the wrath of the judge presiding over the case. Justice Templeman of the West Australian Supreme Court has become totally frustrated by Defence’s adversarial attitude. He has ordered transcripts of the court case to be sent to the Minister for Defence, Dr Brendan Nelson. It seems the judge is also fed up with Defence’s belief in might over right.

The story starts in 2000, when the Albany Port Authority started dredging its harbour. On the verge of a mining boom, the authority needs to make its port deeper, wider and safer for expected heavier traffic. After all, a strong community depends on this port—a community of fishermen, grain farmers, miners and small merchants needing to ship out their exports to domestic and international markets. So, when divers discovered an old bomb lying at the bottom of the harbour, they simply continued to dredge. Then they found more, and more again. It reached the stage where Western Australia’s WorkSafe ordered dredging to stop until the harbour was deemed safe.

At this point, it should simply have been a matter of the Commonwealth assuming responsibility. It should have ensured the dumped bombs were cleared quickly, efficiently and economically. This is, after all, ordnance from World War II. Indeed, evidence given to the Supreme Court proves they were dropped by soldiers in clearance exercises shortly after World War II. It was the Commonwealth’s way of ridding the mainland of unused ordnance. There are even photos in existence showing former soldiers dropping the bombs over the edge of a ship.

So the Albany Port Authority wrote to the government to enlist its help in clearing the harbour. That was five years ago. Since that time there have been 14 expert reports written on the bombs, four attempts at mediation and two expert meetings held. Yet still the government uses delaying tactics to avoid resolving this matter. Once again, Defence has resorted to the courts—and dragged its feet over five long years to delay a resolution.

Remember, this is the same department that has paid $380,000 in legal fees to Dr McKenzie in light of a most reprehensible set of circumstances, as determined by the Medical Board of Western Australia; has spent many long years engaged in delaying settlement in numerous military justice matters; continues to exhaust all legal avenues relevant to the matter of suicide victim Air Cadet Eleanore Tibble in her mother’s quest for justice; and has denied realistic compensation to Air Vice Marshal Peter Criss after controversially dismissing him. It did this by substituting a lesser sum by the minister’s delegate in lieu of the recommendation from mediation proceedings.

We can obviously see a pattern starting to emerge here. An aggrieved party approaches Defence for resolution of a controversial and often painful matter. Yet time and again Defence uses its might to fight the rights of these lesser opponents. It continues to discard any notion of justice and ignores appeals to commonsense or rationality. It has little regard for model litigant obligations—as in this case involving the clean-up of Princess Royal Harbour.

Let us revisit proceedings in the Supreme Court, where Defence is manoeuvring to avoid responsibility for this clean-up. Just a few weeks back, Justice Templeman of the Supreme Court of Western Australia threw out 17 subpoenas from the Commonwealth, reflecting his frustration with Defence’s latest legal tactics. He says the government does not have a defence in the matter and states the obvious. Here is what the judge said about the subpoenas and Defence’s handling of the case—and I quote from numerous extracts:

In the 10 years as a judge of this court, I don’t think I have ever seen a set of subpoenas which are so blatantly fishing and so oppressive as these ...

He also said:

It’s not appropriate to have some forensic contest at the public expense ...

And also:

With these 17 subpoenas, the Commonwealth is seeking to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the plaintiff’s case ...

And he said:

... these subpoenas are an abuse of the process of the court ...

He concluded by saying that ultimately it is the taxpayers who will bear the cost not only of the clean-up but also of Defence’s legal bills. The judge is hoping Dr Nelson will step in and order a speedy resolution to the matter. But it remains to be seen whether the minister will take note and act. After all, disregard and disrespect seem to go hand in glove with this government and its leadership, as is manifest in this department.

I say this because I was hoping to raise the matter of the Albany Port Authority at Senate estimates. I wanted to quiz Defence officials as to how much this legal battle is costing taxpayers, whether the legal bill is likely to cost more than the clean-up itself and what steps Defence has taken to mediate a settlement in this matter. The community of Albany have been waiting for an answer. They are going to have to wait a little longer. Unfortunately, I never had the chance to put my questions at estimates. As we know, the government abolished spill-over days at Senate estimates earlier this year. It effectively cut the time available to question officials. That means I have had to resort to putting my questions on notice.

I started this speech tonight describing the case of Defence versus Albany Port Authority as a David and Goliath battle. I say this because Defence has $57 million at its disposal for legal bills in the 2004-05 financial year alone. To put this in context: Albany Port Authority has an annual turnover of just $7 million a year. As with so many other victims seeking justice, the authority is hardly able to afford the legal might afforded to Defence. So again we see an issue being dragged through the courts with little regard to the eventual cost to taxpayers and with wilful disregard of the victims.

Albany’s harbour cannot be expanded safely until this matter is resolved. It will not take long for shipping companies to put their business elsewhere, so let us hope Albany Port Authority has a bit of stamina for this battle. Judging by the way Defence has treated previous victims seeking justice, it is going to be in for a long wait.