Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 2012:

With reference to defective parade boots within the Australian Defence Force:

(1) What was the nature of the defect.

(2) When were the defective parade boots first issued.

(3) How many pairs of the defective boots were:    (a) issued; and (b) subsequently recovered.

(4) How many Reports on Defective or Unsatisfactory Materiel (RODUMs) were submitted in regard to the potential defect.

(5) How long did it take, from the time that the first report was lodged, until a replacement directive was issued.

(6) What action was taken to ensure all defective boots were removed from service.

(7) What was the cost incurred by the Commonwealth to replace the boots.

(8) Was any of this cost transferred to the boot manufacturer.

(9) Is the manufacturer still contracted by the department.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The issue that led to the recall and modification of the patent leather parade boot involved a de-lamination of the sole. This occurs when the bonding compound that joins the sole to the upper fails and the sole separates from the remainder of the boot.

(2) These boots were introduced into service in late 1999.

(3) (a) Due to changes in the relevant electronic record keeping systems, Defence does not have readily available access to the required records to determine the number of boots issued prior to September 2004. From September 2004 until December 2007 approximately 27,000 pairs of boots were delivered by the contractor. Of the 27,000 boots delivered by the contractor, approximately 14,000 pairs were issued to Service personnel.

It is not possible to state the exact quantity of boots that were defective. Many boots did not suffer from de-lamination, but all boots delivered in this period were treated as suspect.

(3) (b) Since May 2009 3,417 pairs of boots issued to soldiers have been returned and replaced.

(4) There have been 182 RODUMs regarding sole de-lamination since these boots entered service in 1999.

(5) The first RODUM for sole de-lamination was received in March 2000 and the faulty boots were replaced by the contractor. Defence continued to receive a small number of RODUMs per year and faulty boots continued to be replaced by the contractor on a 'one for one' basis until mid 2008. In mid 2008 the clothing systems program office identified a systemic problem with sole de-lamination.

A detailed technical investigation was conducted in 2008 and early 2009. In March 2009 it was decided that all boots should be stitched to further reduce any risk of failure. Army Headquarters released a Directive outlining the replacement process on 3 April 2009.

In addition to the Army Headquarters Directive, the clothing systems program Office and Army Headquarters also placed articles outlining the replacement process in the Army News in March 2009, April 2009, September 2009, October 2009, April 2010, May 2010, October 2010 and June 2011. Army Headquarters also released follow up Directives in October 2009 and December 2010.

The total period from mid 2008 until April 2009 was approximately ten months.

(6) In February 2009 any boots manufactured prior to January 2008 were removed from clothing stores. These older boots were then quarantined and returned to the manufacturer for stitching. As stitched boots became available the remaining stock of the unstitched boots that was delivered in 2008 and 2009 was also returned and stitched.

Soldiers were advised of the replacement process through the Directives and news articles outlined in the response to Question 5 above.

(7) The total cost of this replacement has been approximately $265,000. In addition, Defence spent approximately $10,000 testing boots as part of the investigation into the de-lamination.

(8) The cost to re-stitch boots returned to the contractor by Defence was met by the contractor.

(9) The contractor has completed the delivery of parade boots. The contractor is delivering other footwear through until July 2012.