Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

() (): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's approach to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action as circulated.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I'm informed that the Clerk doesn't think it has been circulated, and the government is saying it hasn't seen it.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too bad.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can still seek leave.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm seeking leave.

Leave not granted.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, do you want to take the time to circulate it and then come back? You can seek leave later if—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I'm just going to do it, thanks.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is your prerogative.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the government's approach to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide received hundreds of submissions about sexual abuse in the ADF. There were so many submissions that, when the final report was handed down, military sexual violence got a 600-page volume all to itself—outstanding performance, aye? Defence's own figures show that close to 800 sexual assaults have been reported in the Australian Defence Force over the past five years, but—let's face it—the number is much higher, because ADF members are too scared to come forward because victims aren't supported and perpetrators are protected. That is still going on, even after a royal commission. In too many cases, Defence protected the perpetrator—it still does—and hung the victims out to dry. This seems to be the norm, and, once again, I call on the Australian Defence Force Academy to be closed down effective immediately.

The commission also noted that Australian Defence Force members convicted of sexual assault and rape remain in service, and, yes, Australia's sexual abusers are still walking around in our Australian military uniform while their arses are covered by the top brass. The commissioners wrote in volume 3:

To say we find this concerning is an understatement.

Defence's total failure to address this issue is more than shameful. I am sick to death of Defence protecting these abusers. My legislation to create a sexual assault prevention, intervention and response commission position with real powers to deal this is under inquiry. The purpose of this inquiry is not to re-examine previous inquiries or individual cases but to ensure my bill best supports victims-survivors and not the abusers, unlike the top brass in our military.

Seriously, I thought the situation couldn't get any worse, but here it goes. An Australian law firm has a class action going on. The action alleges the Australian Defence Force is liable due to the systemic failure to protect its female members from sexual harassment during their service between 13 November 2003 and 25 May 2025. Given Defence's total inability to fix this sort of issue, despite numerous inquiries over 20 years, this class action does not surprise me one bit. I personally think it has a pretty good chance of getting some justice for these female veterans.

But the government is trying to wriggle out of facing these veterans in a court of law. How about that? What a disgrace. I'm going to be clear and tell you now what the government is up to today. Because some of the Australian veterans in the class action were on duty overseas when this abuse happened to them, today the Commonwealth is expected to file an application in the Federal Court of Australia, in response to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action, to advance an extraterritoriality argument. Basically, they are arguing that, if the abuse and discrimination happened overseas, Australian laws don't apply and you will not be protected. To make that really clear, the government aren't saying this abuse didn't happen; they are saying that, if it happened overseas, it's not their bloody problem today. This position risks denying affected service men and women meaningful access to justice. It also sends the message that the protections of Australian law may diminish when Australian Defence Force members are placed in the most vulnerable and dangerous environments overseas.

In December last year, Minister Keogh told the National Press Club:

Sexual misconduct in our Defence Force is unacceptable wherever it occurs. I'm very clear on that.

This statement is similar to the remark made 25 years ago by the then Chief of Army, Sir Peter Cosgrove, who said to the Senate Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 6 October 2000:

We will weed out discrimination and harassment wherever we find it. We will punish those who harass and support the victims of it.

Both statements make it clear that sexual misconduct in the ADF is not acceptable, no matter where you are. They also highlight the inconsistency—actually, the hypocrisy—of the government's public messaging and the position of the Australian Defence Force in sex discrimination class actions. The government and Minister Keogh have fallen all over themselves since the royal commission, promising to fix the problems in Defence and veterans affairs, but now the same government is saying, 'If you enlist and you are sexually discriminated against overseas, then, sorry, we're not protecting you because the law doesn't apply to you.' This argument—a disgraceful argument, if you ask me—doesn't make sense. When a soldier is deployed, they are deployed by the Commonwealth, by the Australian people. They operate within Australian command structures and remain subject to Australian military discipline and policy and the statutory authorities at all times. Their service relationship is regulated by Australian law. It doesn't matter where you are deployed. The ADF's own framework relies on this. But are they now saying, if you're a victim of sexual abuse or discrimination as it relates to our serving members, then Australian laws don't count? The Commonwealth would rather engage multiple barristers and top-tier commercial lawyers involving senior counsels and partners, rather than providing justice to these victims. I have to ask: what are you doing, Richard Marles? (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this motion urgently before the Senate. If you want to know why it's urgent, it's urgent because in the next 24 hours—and we've spoken to lawyers involved—the Commonwealth government may well file an application in the Federal Court to try and defeat a class action brought by members of the Australian Defence Force and say, effectively, that sex discrimination laws don't apply in the Australian Defence Force and women won't have that protection inside the Australian Defence Force. This is after all we heard during the veterans royal commission about how so much of the ADF is unsafe for women. Women who have put their hand up to serve this country deserve the protection of our laws, they deserve the protection of our parliament and they should deserve the protection of this government.

Senator Lambie stood up and said, 'Where's the defence minister in response to this?' The Minister for Defence said, 'Yes, everything has changed in the ADF; we are fighting discrimination and women have a right to be safe.' Where's the defence minister when the Commonwealth lawyers are about to file a defence saying, 'Actually, none of the laws protecting women from discrimination apply if you're in the Defence Force—it's fair game in the Defence Force'? Where is the defence minister? I'll be clear: one of the reasons the Greens are supporting this motion is to send a peaceful, non-violent shot across their bows to say, 'Don't do this,' and to say to the Commonwealth lawyers, 'Don't you dare say that discrimination laws don't apply in the ADF and can't protect women in the ADF.'

Why is this urgent? This is urgent because if this is filed by the Commonwealth,= then the entire veterans community and all of those serving in the Defence Force will know that nothing the Chief of the Defence Force, the former chief of Defence Force, the Minister for Defence and the government said about being honest about responding to the recommendations from the veterans royal commission and being honest about making women safe meant a pinch of beans. I don't want that to happen. The Greens don't want that to happen. I think there are so many people in the veterans community who don't want that to happen, and there's a way for it not to happen: Defence Minister Marles can call the lawyers and say, 'Don't do it.'

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting the suspension. We had no notice of it at all, which means that I am at a disadvantage in being able to even respond to it. Those in this place who always seek to have advice about what's going on have brought something that wasn't even circulated at the point that the senator moved it. I'm here trying to get information in order to be able to be in a position to respond to the suspension—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's atrocious that you're doing it.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, all we ask is that, if you're going to do something like this, you give five seconds notice.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I'm not ashamed of myself, Senator Lambie.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, you were listened to in silence.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Senate, frankly, in the way in conducts itself at the moment, is an embarrassment to the nation. The way that we conduct ourselves in this chamber is an absolute embarrassment. Yesterday was an all-time low, and it seems that, at 10 minutes past 12, we're sinking into exactly the same kind of conduct. All I am saying to you, Senator Lambie, is that if you are going to move a motion like this—a suspension—it is common courtesy in this chamber to give a heads-up so that people can be prepared in order to respond respectfully to the issues that you raise. That has not been afforded, and I have tried to get as much information as I can in the last 10 minutes about the issue you raised.

This matter, which is currently before the courts, remains in its early stages. It is standard practice for preliminary issues to be addressed through the court to clarify and confirm aspects of the claim. This ensures that the proceedings can be managed appropriately. I am not in a position to comment any further or, indeed, even to respond to some of the allegations that have been raised in this chamber by Senator Shoebridge and Senator Lambie, as the Commonwealth has not yet put a position to the court, and disclosing details could prejudice the court proceedings and impact legal professional privilege. There was a time when this chamber would have listened to that and respected that. I accept that the Senate has moved way beyond operating in that world, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that. I know that this issue was raised in estimates. The CDF, Admiral Johnston—

If I could just finish without being shouted at by other senators, Admiral Johnston has been clear about the supportive approach the ADF seeks to provide to women who serve in the ADF.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, sure, on paper but nowhere else.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that you disagree, Senator Lambie, but we each have the right to stand up and respond. The advice that I can give this morning, based on the information that I've been able to glean, is that it is standard practice for preliminary issues to be addressed through the court to clarify and confirm aspects of the claim so that the proceedings can be managed appropriately. As this matter is before the court, I am not in a position to provide any further information. If there is more engagement that we can provide to Senator Lambie through the Minister for Defence, I'm very happy to undertake that and to see if we can provide that information because I know that Senator Lambie's advocacy around matters relating to defence and veterans in defence is a priority for her and one the government respects and has sought at every opportunity to work with her on. But in terms of being able to respond to some of the allegations that you have asserted in this place, I am not in a position, and that is partly procedural due to the fact that we were not given any notice and also due to the disrespect that was shown to people in this place to engage in this suspension stunt. That happens every single day that we are due to start on government business but never ever happens on private senators' business days, ever. There is never any suspension that is sought on those days because it is not nearly as important then, so that stunt is the first point. The second point is, because these matters are before the courts and they are being considered by the court, which is the appropriate place for this to occur, we will not support the suspension.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to take the opportunity to briefly put the opposition's position on the record in relation to this. A defence force is nothing without its people. You can have the most impressive platforms, you can have the most advanced technology, you can have the most extensive ammunitions but if you don't have people to operate them, you have nothing. It is very clear from the evidence of the royal commission into veterans that, on a bipartisan basis over a very long period of time, we have failed our people in uniform, and it is very clear that we must do better. It is clear from the evidence that instances of sexual abuse have occurred in the Defence Force and that the Defence Force has not adequately dealt with those.

Senator Lambie raises very legitimate and very serious issues today that we should all have great respect for and understand is coming from a good place. The opposition is not in a position to support the suspension today, though, because, as the minister said, this does go to a matter which is currently before the courts. I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the case. The motion calls on the Commonwealth to take a particular position on the case in the courts and it is not clear to me, based on the limited time I had to understand this, what the implications of the Senate encouraging the government to do that would be and, as the minister said, this is in a preliminary stage.

I would encourage the government to very carefully consider the arguments made by Senator Lambie, by veterans and by others in this place as to how to best handle this case from a point of view of having due care and consideration for the welfare of our men and women in uniform and veterans who have been victims of abuse historically. But, as I said, the opposition is not in a position to support this motion today.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for moving this motion. The Australian Defence Force, as Senator Paterson has just said, protects us and it relies upon its people to do so, and we need to protect the Australian Defence Force people. One Nation supports getting this on the record and noted urgently—urgently! I agree with Senator Gallagher; this place is a shambles, and the Labor government is making it even worse. Labor is destroying formal motions. We saw yesterday a stunt persecuting and denying Pauline Hanson justice that was cooked up days in advance. It was in the media. So, yes, we agree with you; this place is a shambles. The top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility and that is what Senator Lambie is after here. Why have a royal commission into veteran suicide, why have an inquiry into honours and awards and just ignore both of them—ignore everything—and just let the top brass run? We need to hold the top brass accountable.

As I read this motion, Senator Lambie is calling the government to immediately abandon this position, adhere to its legal and moral obligations to ADF members and ensure that no ADF members are denied legal protections or access to justice because they were serving outside of the Australia at the direction of the Commonwealth. She just wants women to be protected. She wants all people in the Defence Force to be protected. The key issue here is sexual discrimination and an answer from the government to fix this problem regardless of whether it goes to court. We support Senator Lambie.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to rise in support of Senator Lambie's work to highlight the plight of too many defence personnel and veterans in this country. We have to do more to look after serving personnel and their families and then veterans once they decide to leave our defence forces. The biggest issue in defence isn't just recruitment; it's also retainment.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I will remind you that we do need to speak to the reason why we are seeking to suspend standing orders. It's not just an opportunity to talk about the general issue.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. I think this is directly relevant to exactly what Senator Lambie is urgently trying to get the Senate to deal with—a government who talks a big deal on defence. We have both major parties talking a big game when it comes to defence and then, from what I've seen, not having the same focus and care on the actual defence personnel.

As many senators have pointed out, without Australians who are willing to sign up to our defence forces to defend Australia—with the cost that they and their families incur—we don't have a defence force. We have to be doing more, and it seems to me that a government that is willing to say to defence personnel, 'What happens overseas is not our problem'—that goes to the very heart of some of the issues that we see in defence. I would urge the government—I know this is a complex area. I know there are a lot of things to balance in terms of budget and all of the other constraints that we hear a lot about, but, surely, we can find it in us to better look after defence personnel, their families and veterans. Surely, that should be a focus. If you're willing to put your life on the line for our country, this great country, if you're willing to sign up where you could die in the name of Australia, we owe it to you to look after you while you're serving and then once you're out. We have an obligation to you. So I would urge the government to do more. It is deeply troubling. If what Senator Lambie is bringing forward in this motion is true, it is deeply troubling to have an Australian government that is doing that.

To the broader issue around defence, if this five per cent cut—which the government is denying but we're hearing will potentially affect departments—is true for somewhere like DVA, what will that mean for veterans' processing times? What will that mean for people who feel like they're not getting the supports that they need? This is all connected. I urge the government: we need a change of attitude from the top brass down. I would say that that actually comes from the government demanding of the Defence Force that we better look after serving personnel and that we better look after veterans. Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your work on this.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the suspension motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.