This is yesterday’s reply by Labor Senate Leader John Faulkner to Robert Hill’s “statement” on Australia’s cover-up of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

 

This much-heralded statement, this comprehensive explanation promised two weeks ago by the Prime Minister, is a disgrace. It�s a damp squib. It�s not an explanation. It�s a whitewash.

The Government insists on responding to allegations that have not been made. The Opposition has not � does not � accuse Australian troops of having been involved in the abuse of prisoners. This is a straw man put up by the Government. After all it�s so much easier for Mr Howard and his colleagues to defend Australian troops against imagined slurs than to address the real and uncomfortable issues this saga has raised.

This so-called statement is just the last in a litany of failures for which Senator Hill must take ultimate responsibility.

What it reveals is a supine Government, a dysfunctional department and a Minister asleep at the wheel.

Senator Hill blames the Opposition � for indulging in smear tactics and claims of cover-up. He blames Defence � for providing inaccurate information to the Government. He blames everybody but himself.

This is a Minister more concerned about self-preservation than decent standards. His statement is full of excuses � there�s nothing about consequences.

And the logical consequence of a fiasco such as this is the big gap in Senator Hill�s statement � his own resignation.

This is the Minister who, 20 months ago, in the wake of the �children overboard� scandal, promised to fix the very problems which have caused this mess. He has failed abysmally.

The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and senior Defence officials seriously misled the Australian parliament and people about what the Government knew and when, in relation to the abuse of Coalition detainees in Iraq. And the only excuse Senator Hill can offer is �It was the best we knew at the time.� We hear today Senator Hill has apologised to the Prime Minister. What about apologising to the Parliament and the Australian people?

Remember that on 27 May in the House of Representatives, Mr Howard said it was not until February of this year that a report by the Red Cross raised allegations of ill treatment of detainees. An earlier report in October 2003 had covered only �general concerns about detainee conditions and treatment�. He went on to say: �To suggest that, because Major O�Kane drafted a response to the October report, he or the Australian government were in some way aware of the more serious allegations�.. is quite nonsensical.

In the Senate, Senator Hill told us on 11 May that Defence and the Government �became aware of the International Red Cross report in February�. When asked when he personally became aware of the prisoner abuse, he said �I am not going to split myself from the Government� and �I accept the responsibilities that flow from that.� I�ll come back to the issue of Senator Hill�s responsibility.

Persistent questioning by the media and the Opposition following the publication of the abuse photos at the end of April led Defence to conduct an inquiry � its first inquiry – into its state of knowledge of the abuses.

The results of that inquiry, which included a survey of 298 members of the Defence forces, were announced by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove and the Secretary of Defence, Mr Ric Smith, on 28 May. We were informed that �none of those surveyed were aware of abuse or serious mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or detainees, of the nature of recent allegations, during their deployment� and �there were no reports about the abuse or serious mistreatment of prisoners or detainees of the nature of recent allegations made, either through the chain of command or informally.�

General Cosgrove and Mr Smith informed us that Major O�Kane had said that �the October 2003 [Red Cross] report raised general concerns about detainee conditions and treatment, but no mention of abuse.� As for the top brass? �Neither the current Australian Joint Force Commander in the Middle East or any of his predecessors was aware of these allegations of abuse or serious mistreatment � until the publication of photographs in April 2004, and neither was Defence leadership in Canberra.�

So, according to the Government, the situation as at 28 May was that the ADF first knew of the abuses in February when Major O�Kane saw the second Red Cross report, and the Defence leadership and Ministers first knew of them when the photos were published at the end of April.

Remember that 28 May was 7 months after the Red Cross first raised prisoner abuses with the Coalition Provisional Authority (including the embedded Australians); it was more than 4 months after the US issued a press release about the abuse allegations; it was three months after the Red Cross submitted a detailed report to the US; and 1 month after the abuse photos were published. Remember also that the 28 May statement came after the prisoner abuse issue had been running as the number one media issue nationally and internationally for a full four weeks and following exhaustive inquiries of all relevant defence personnel.

Precisely how the Government got it so wrong and maintained such ignorance in these circumstances has still not been explained satisfactorily � certainly not by Senator Hill today. And of course anyone who dared question this unbelievable version of reality was subjected � and has been again today by Senator Hill – to streams of abuse for questioning the integrity of our troops. That is something the Opposition has never done � no matter how hard the Government tries to pretend otherwise.

Since then of course � since the 28 May statement – the Government has been in full retreat. How�s this for classic backsliding � Mr Howard on 30 May: �I�m told by Defence that Major O�Kane has told Defence that the October report did not contain references to the abuse ���I�m just telling you what I have been told.� What I want to know is what else the Prime Minister had been told at that time to warrant such incredibly guarded language.

Then on Tuesday afternoon, 1 June, after one and a half days of questioning at Senate Estimates, Defence Secretary Ric Smith admitted that there were �inaccuracies� in the 28 May statement, �inconsistencies between that statement and the evidence [we] have heard over the last two days.� He explained the 28 May statement �reflected the best knowledge we had at that time�. Since that time, Mr Smith said, the existence of two Red Cross working papers dated October and November 2003 had come to light and, further, Major O�Kane�s understanding that the October report had only raised general concerns as opposed to serious allegations, was incorrect. He and General Cosgrove took full responsibility for the stuffups � to the enormous relief of the Minister beside them – and regretted any embarrassment they had caused the Government.

Mr Howard was also very happy to let his two top Defence officials accept the blame. On 1 June, leaving for the United States, he dumped all over them. �I regret very much that I was given the wrong advice�, �I am very unhappy that I was misinformed by the Defence Department.� Remarkably, while he claimed to have been misled by the Defence Department, he denied he had misled the Parliament and the Australian public: �I did not mislead the public or the Australian Parliament. The advice that I gave the Parliament and the public was based on the advice I�d received from the Defence Department.�

This was a desperate Prime Minister trying to rewrite the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility to avoid any of the mess sticking to him or his ministerial colleagues. Note there was not a mention of the Minister who was presiding over this shambles.

Now, after the indignant denials and subsequent retreat, what we�ve heard today from Senator Hill is yet another grudging apology: � I regret that incorrect information was provided to me and, through me, to the Prime Minister.� As if that�s enough!

I think it�s important at this stage to explain just what it is the Opposition is accusing the Government of.

It is:

� Failure to take seriously the reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US personnel.

� Failure to acknowledge Australia�s legal and moral obligations to Iraqi prisoners in general and those captured by Australian forces in particular.

� Failure to take its accountability responsibilities seriously.

� Failure to correct the serious procedural faults in Defence which were revealed by the �Children Overboard� inquiry.

This is a serious litany of failure by any standard � even the standards of the Howard Government.

Let me take the first of these. Right from the start the Government has demonstrated by its inaction that it does not take the issue of prisoner abuse in Iraq seriously. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. What did the Government do in response to the US press release about prisoner abuse accusations in mid-January and the CNN reports a few days later? Nothing. Did it think to make inquiries of its Coalition partner about the seriousness and extent of these allegations? No. Did it bother to check whether the allegations involved violation of the Geneva Conventions? It did not. Has it even now bothered to check on the welfare of the 120 Iraqis Australian forces assisted in capturing? No. It doesn�t even care. According to Senator Hill, they were just a drop in the ocean.

When the photos of prisoner abuse were first published on 29 April, provoking shock and outrage around the world, you might have imagined that the Howard Government, as a loyal and close ally of the United States, a strong and unquestioning supporter of its actions in Iraq and an influential member of the Coalition of the Willing, would immediately express its concern to the US. But no. The abuses were not regarded as serious enough to warrant even a diplomatic murmur of disapproval.

You would have thought also that � in the face of such universal outrage and disgust – the Prime Minister, or Minister Hill or Minister Downer, might have been prompted to think �We�re part of what�s happening in Iraq. We�ve got Australian military personnel embedded in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. What did they know about this? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?� But no � it was left to others, the media and the Opposition, to ask such questions. And even a month later � on 28 May � the Government wasn�t able to accurately answer them.

It was either not asking any questions, or not asking the right questions or refusing to listen to the answers. Whatever, the Government stands condemned for this massive dereliction of duty.

The Government has also failed to take its legal and moral responsibilities to Iraqi detainees seriously. It has both legal and moral responsibilities as an occupying power and as a member of the Coalition. These responsibilities include ensuring respect for the Geneva Conventions not only in relation to Iraqis captured by Australian forces, but to Iraqi detainees generally.

In fact Mr Downer directly acknowledged these responsibilities in an answer to a question on notice last September, when he said the Government had established a legal watch group to �advise on legal matters of relevance to Australia�s participation in the Coalition Provisional Authority�..and consult with its counterparts to ensure that Australia�s legal obligations are taken into account.�

Since then the Government has been attempting to sidestep the responsibilities flowing from Australia�s participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It argues that Australia is not an Occupying Power, on the basis that the United Nations, in Security Council Resolution 1483, has specifically only recognised the US and UK as Occupying Powers.

However, according to Professor Gillian Triggs of Melbourne University, �Australia has a legal responsibility to all detained persons, whether prisoners of war or civilians, as a Joint Occupying Power in Iraq and as a member of the Coalition� and further �Australia�s continuing obligations as a joint Occupying Power are not altered by Security Council Resolution 1483 in the absence of express termination of its status in relation to future acts.�

The Government also contrived a legal artifice to ensure that Australian troops never officially detained any Iraqi POWs and therefore never triggered the immediate or longer-term responsibilities of a Detaining Power under the third Geneva Convention. The arrangement was that US troops who accompanied the Australian troops would always act as the detaining power, even when POWs were detained by an Australian warship crewed by Australians with only a single US Coast Guard sailor on board.

When we pressed Senator Hill for the legal basis of this arrangement, all he could point to was a letter dated 11 March 2002 from the then Commander of US Central Command to the then Chief of the Australian Defence Forces referring to an agreement negotiated for the conflict in Afghanistan! He was unable to say, he didn�t know, noone in Defence could tell him – how that 2-year old agreement came to be relevant to the conflict in Iraq. And today � in his so-called explanatory statement � he doesn�t even address the issue.

It is incredible after the total incapacity of the Minister and officials at the estimates hearings to explain the legal underpinning for the arrangements relating to the 120 Iraqis captured by Australian forces that Senator hasn�t offered an explanation today. He promised to do this two weeks ago. He still hasn�t done it.

As for the Government�s accountability responsibilities, it has shirked these absolutely. In fact it has rendered the concept of ministerial responsibility virtually meaningless. As I�ve said, on 1 June General Cosgrove and Mr Smith dutifully took �full responsibility� for having provided incorrect advice to the Government and the public. But �taking full responsibility� apparently meant nothing more than mouthing the words.

And neither General Cosgrove nor Mr Smith � nor the Minister today � has offered any explanation as to why, knowing their earlier evidence was incorrect, they waited until the afternoon of Tuesday 1 June before correcting the record. We know the errors in their evidence came to light over the weekend of 29 and 30 May.

So why did Mr Smith tell the Senate Estimates Committee on Monday 31 May that �we know that no Defence personnel were aware of the allegations of abuse or serious mistreatment before the public reports in January� when he must have known this to be untrue? Why did he say the October Red Cross reports were only �about things like prison conditions and so on� when he knew they were not? Why did Mr Carmody fail to acknowledge, when asked, that the October report described serious abuses, when he knew this to be the case?

Were these senior Defence officials hoping we would not pursue these issues, and that they may not have to correct the record? Why else would they have sat there in estimates biting their tongues for a day and a half before putting the facts on the record? We are at least entitled to an explanation of what, on the face of it, appears to be a contempt of parliament. Yet Senator Hill � illustrating the culture he appears to preside over in Defence � has simply ignored this serious issue.

The Prime Minister, as I have said, has adopted a trenchant �Don�t blame me. It�s all Defence�s fault� approach. After all, he�s just the Prime Minister.

And Senator Hill himself? The Minister who, according to Mr Howard�s code of ministerial conduct is �ultimately accountable for the overall operation of his portfolio�? The Minister who bravely asserted when asked when the government became aware of the prisoner abuse �I accept the responsibilities that flow from that�? How has he discharged his accountability obligations? By doing nothing more than presenting half-baked excuses to the Senate weeks too late. He hasn�t even done it as a proper Ministerial statement. He�s avoided this by simply providing additional information to an answer given to a question asked five weeks ago. That�s not good enough, Senator Hill, nowhere near good enough. If ministerial responsibility is to mean anything Senator Hill has to resign.

Ignorance of matters such as these does not absolve a Minister from responsibility. In fact it only compounds Senator Hill�s responsibility. After all Senator Hill is � in the words of Jack Waterford in an excellent article in the Canberra Times [on 6 June] � �a paranoid and suspicious minister�who distrusts all of his advisers [and] is a compulsive micromanager who wants to know everything.� He�s had almost three years at the helm of Defence. If he�s been kept in the dark, then he must accept responsibility for having created, or failed to correct, the circumstances and environment that have kept him in the dark.

There are uncanny parallels between the Government�s handling of the prisoner abuse scandal and the �children overboard� affair: the same obstinate refusal on the part of the Prime Minister and other Ministers to seek out the truth; the same reluctance on the part of senior officials and advisers to pass on unwelcome or inconvenient advice to their political masters; the same Nixonian culture of plausible deniability.

Then, as now, neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Defence accepted any responsibility. Then, as now, the Government made Defence the scapegoat. Then, as now, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence set up a task force. Back then, it was to examine �the range of internal and external communication issues flowing from the [children overboard] incident�.

Following the report of that task force, Senator Hill issued a press release, on 22 October 2002, claiming that it was �confusion surrounding the [children overboard] incident that led to inaccurate information being given to the Government�. Not to worry, he had instructed Defence �to move quickly to �.ensure there is no repeat of the communication problems experienced ..�.

He claimed to have already ensured �a clearer understanding of the incident reporting requirements through the chain of command and the passing of such information to the Minister�s office.� �Ministers and decision makers within Defence� he said, �must be confident that the information they are acting on is delivered in a timely and accurate manner.� And this: �I also accept there is a responsibility to ensure there are clear lines of communication between the Minister�s office and Defence.� Yes Minister � your responsibility! And one you have patently failed to deliver on.

If the Prime Minister wants us to believe the Government is serious about respect for the Geneva Conventions, if he wants the Australian people to have confidence in the leadership of our Defence Forces and Defence Department, if he is to demand even the most minimal standards of competence from his Ministry, if he is to attach any meaning at all to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility � then he has no alternative but to sack Senator Hill.