I never saw a shadow of a man until I saw Robert Hill deliver his “ministerial statement” on the Defence Force cover-up – according to Defence – of its total inability to take seriously our reputation for strictly upholding the Geneva Conventions. Or even to see that torture of Iraqis by Americans was inimical to our stated desire to “liberate” Iraq and should be reported to Hill and Howard. That’s the way Defence explains not telling ministers, if they didn’t, of course. Who knows when Hill won’t answer any of the questions arising from the scandal so far?

 

What we do know after Hill’s abject cop out is that the Defence Force is no longer accountable to the Australian people through its Parliament. That’s a scary development.

I’m still thinking about what Hill’s cop-out means – tactics to bury the story or the ultimate rebuke to the Defence Force. Tonight, the “statement”. In the next entry, Faulkner’s reply. Any thoughts?

***

ROBERT HILL, 3.40PM, Wednesday, June 16, The Senate Chamber of the elected representatives of the people of Australia.

Mr President, I would like to provide some further information in relation to questions I was asked on May 11 in relation to prisoner abuse in Iraq.

In doing so I will provide the Senate with 3 detailed tables compiled on the basis of information available to Defence on these issues. They provide:

* A list by rank of all ADF personnel embedded in Coalition forces in the Middle East Area of Operations, the positions they held and the dates of their deployment;

* A list of visits to detention facilities by ADF personnel and the reasons for those visits; and

* A chronological summary of Situation Reports compiled by ADF Legal Officers embedded in the Coalition Provisional Authority Office of General Counsel where reference was made to detention concerns.

I would note that much of this information has already been placed on the public record at the recent Estimates hearings.

In addition I can advise the Senate that Defence will today provide the answers to more than 60 questions which were taken on notice at those hearings.

Mr President, having put this level of detail on the public record, I still note there are some who are determined to implicate Australia in the abuses that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison regardless of the facts.

There has been a deliberate attempt to raise the spectre of some kind of �guilt by association� in relation to these abuses. That can be evidenced by the deliberately loose language of the Shadow spokesman who referred on radio to “the involvement of Australian legal officers in the abuse scandal.”

Mr President, on May 11 I gave the Senate, as best I could, an assurance that no Australians were involved in the abuses we have seen portrayed in these horrific photos. I said:

“What I am concerned about is that there is an implication within the Labor Party questions that, in some way, the ADF are at fault in this matter. The ADF did not manage the prisons, the ADF did not interrogate the prisoners.”

Mr President, Defence has thoroughly reviewed the information available to it and has confirmed the key facts in this issue: Australia did not interrogate prisoners. Australia was not involved in guarding prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison or any other Iraqi prison.

Australia was in no way involved in perpetrating the acts of abuse against Iraqi prisoners we have seen in photos published in the media.

Mr President, I can confirm that Australian forces assisted in the capture of around 120 Iraqis during the combat phase of the war but in each case the United States was the detaining authority.

To put that 120 in context, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that prior to the war the Iraqi armed forces numbered 389,000.

The captures were effected in March and early April � some 4 months before Abu Ghraib prison was re-opened by the US. I would also note that the Red Cross February Report in its reference to its October visits to Abu Ghraib notes that the detainees had been captured mainly in early October.

I have been asked previously when did the Government become aware of the issue of alleged abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and I have said that from the time of the January media release by the US military and the subsequent CNN report the Government would have been aware of allegations of abuse and that these allegations were being investigated – that is of course when the world at large learned of it.

I have also stated that it was only with the release of the horrific photos in late April of this year that I became aware that abuses had occurred and the extent of those abuses.

I told the Senate on May 11: “The abuses I saw in the media about a fortnight ago, I saw for the first time.”

I stand by that statement.

I have stated that Defence became aware of the existence of the February Report of the Red Cross relating to detention practices in Iraq in February through ADF legal officers working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

It has subsequently emerged that, some time after November 12, an ADF legal officer, Major O�Kane, working with Coalition Force Headquarters in Baghdad had access to working papers from Red Cross inspections of two prisons in October. The officer had not been present during the inspections.

Defence has confirmed that there is no record of those working papers being passed up through the chain of command back to Australia.

It is important to note that the Red Cross did not deliver either its February Report or the earlier October working papers to Australia.

The Red Cross handed its report to those who were responsible for the running of the prisons � the US and the UK. The working papers were provided to the Coalition Force Headquarters.

I would note that despite all of the recent inferences of Australian involvement and claims of a cover up by Australian officials, the Red Cross still declines to make those reports officially available to Australia.

In their view, it was a matter for the detaining authorities, the US and the UK, and remains so.

Mr President, in contrast to the atmosphere of suspicion generated by the Opposition�s questions, the facts of this issue reveal that Australia has made a positive contribution to improved detention and judicial practices in Iraq.

An Australian officer posted to the Office of General Counsel in the Coalition Provisional Authority in April of last year played an important role in streamlining detention practices and improving detention conditions. This included helping to facilitate the work of the Red Cross.

This officer, who visited Abu Ghraib on a number of occasions, expressed concerns about over-crowding in prisons and his efforts helped the Coalition to implement better processes.

I would note that Australian legal officers in both the CPA headquarters and the Coalition Forces headquarters worked cooperatively with the Red Cross to facilitate visits to prisons and access to Coalition officials.

Mr President, as noted previously, the work of the Red Cross saw it visit the Abu Ghraib prison twice and the special detention facility at Baghdad International Airport once during October of last year.

As a result of these visits, two working papers were delivered to the Coalition Forces Headquarters where Major O�Kane was tasked to assist in responding.

Officials in Australia were not informed of those working papers at the time.

Until recently, Defence believed it did not have access to those working papers.

I have expressed that belief publicly, as has the Prime Minister.

It subsequently emerged that while Defence was not officially provided with those papers, Major O�Kane had brought copies of them back in February of this year among other papers from his time in Iraq. Those papers were provided to the International Policy Division in Defence on May 11 but were not recognised as what was subsequently referred to as the “October Report”.

I regret that incorrect information was provided to me and, through me, to the Prime Minister.

Defence officials had previously understood the working papers as dealing generally with concerns about detainee conditions and treatment.

This advice was passed to the Prime Minister who used it in good faith in response to a question in the Parliament on May 27.

When the documents were discovered and examined it was clear that they included allegations we would characterise more seriously in that they referred to allegations of ill-treatment.

I would note, however, that the October working paper on the inspections of the Abu Ghraib prison does not contain evidence or allegations of the type of serious abuses which have subsequently come to light from the publication of the photos.

There was no reference to naked prisoners being dragged along the ground by a dog leash as we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to the hooding of prisoners as we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to prisoners undergoing mock electrocutions, again that we have seen in the photos.

There was no reference to naked prisoners being forced to lie on top of each other.

There was no reference to the pyramid of naked prisoners.

There was no reference to the use of guard dogs to terrify prisoners.

There was no reference to prisoners being sexually abused by guards.

There was no reference to prisoners being made to pose in simulations of sexual acts.

Surprisingly, there is no mention at all of detainees being photographed.

It is a matter of record that these abuses all happened. We have seen the photos that prove it. But to suggest that Australia had knowledge of the extent of the abuses at Abu Ghraib through the October working papers is a nonsense.

The October Red Cross working paper on Abu Ghraib asked the Coalition authorities to clarify and improve the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees under interrogation.

Major O�Kane was tasked to ensure this report was taken seriously and given a proper response.

Mr President, Major O�Kane visited Abu Ghraib prison on December 4 of last year, as detailed at the recent Estimates hearings, to discuss the findings of the Red Cross October working paper.

Defence advised me on May 26 that: “The response was taken seriously by the SJA Office and included Major O�Kane visiting Abu Ghraib and obtaining comments from the responsible officers (MP and Military Intelligence Lieutenant Colonels) about the concerns raised in the 2003 ICRC inspection. The responsible officers denied the specific allegations and were adamant that there was no abuse or mistreatment of internees.”

Subsequent to the Estimates hearings, Major O�Kane has again been interviewed about this visit and has confirmed that the Red Cross report was being taken seriously by Coalition authorities.

He has also confirmed that he raised the contents of the report “paragraph by paragraph” with the appropriate military officials and that the allegations were denied.

As part of his on-going involvement with the Red Cross, Major O�Kane facilitated the next ICRC visit to Abu Ghraib in January of this year. All the evidence indicates that Major O�Kane continued to work in a constructive manner with the Red Cross on detention issues and in no small way ensured that difficulties encountered by the Red Cross in its October visits were not repeated.

Mr President, as I have previously mentioned other embedded ADF legal officers had contact with the Red Cross February report. They also helped facilitate meetings between the Red Cross and the CPA. While they reported the existence of the February report to officials in Australia I would note again that the report itself was not delivered to Australia as we were not responsible for detention issues.

As stated at the Estimates hearings, the existence of the report was not passed to Ministers at the time as it was considered that detention matters were not an issue for which Australia had responsibility and it was also clear that these issues were being dealt with seriously by the relevant detaining authorities.

Mr President, Defence has faithfully tried to establish and report the facts as it sees them but I would note that it is not as simple as pressing a button or logging on to a database.

More than 3,000 Australians have served in different roles under the banner of Operation FALCONER and Operation CATALYST. When they return to Australia they are not all based in the one location nor do they necessarily return to the same job.

Mr President, in providing full and detailed advice on this issue Defence has faced difficulties but has always provided advice in good faith and based on the best knowledge to hand.

Subsequent to the Estimates hearings Defence completed a review of all the information available to it. The level of detail in the tables provided is evidence of the effort that has been applied. The information is the most complete picture Defence can provide on its knowledge to date of this issue.

In closing I would like to quote from the advice provided to me by the head of the Defence Legal Service on May 28 which stated:

stralian Defence Force personnel, whether dealing with prisoners or detainees, acted at all times consistently with their international obligations, including under the Geneva Convention.” Mr President, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have done an outstanding job in Iraq, serving with honour and distinction. They have our government�s full support. They certainly deserve better than the smear tactics and claims of cover-ups from the Opposition.