CHAIR-Do other senators have questions on the white paper? In that case we will finish the discussion on the white paper.

Senator LUDLAM-These are issues that I do not believe have been touched on earlier that mainly go to the public consultation process that preceded the production of the white paper. Can you tell us in general terms how much did public opinion on defence spending and defence priorities actually matter in the final analysis in the preparation of this document?

Mr Pezzullo-Perhaps I am best placed to take that question initially. The public consultation process was initiated by the government in the early part of 2008. You might recall that a green paper was released in about the middle of 2008, following which a series of meetings and other outreach activities were conducted by a panel headed up by Mr Stephen Loosley and a number of other persons who assisted him on that panel. They reported as a panel to the government late last year and, as you know, that report was subsequently released by the Minister for Defence earlier this year just ahead of the white paper.

You ask how much public opinion, or public views, on the levels of defence expenditure count. That is a somewhat difficult question to answer directly because in the end it was, of course, the government that came to a view about the appropriate level of defence expenditure that was relevant to our circumstances. Earlier in answer to a question from Senator Trood, I made the observation that, having regard to all the strategic judgments put before the government in its consideration of the white paper, the government decided to modernise the force, in part through reinvested savings. That gives us the capacity to build a larger ADF than otherwise would be case. I draw attention to that earlier evidence. The government had before it the community consultation report as it finalised its consideration around the white paper. To the extent that it informed or did not inform ministers in the views that they came to finally is a question at that I would ultimately have to refer to the minister at the table. In the end, it was the government that decided what level of resourcing would be provided to Defence.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you for that. I presume you would be aware of surveys that were conducted as part of the consultation process and that workshops that travelled around the country were quite well attended. We will get to those in a moment. I refer specifically to surveys that were conducted. You must have asked some fairly direct questions. They showed that support for increased defence expenditure in the public mind has fallen from 75 per cent support in 2000 to 30 per cent support in June 2008. Essentially, public support for increased defence expenditure fell by half. Yet what has been produced is a document that outlines approximately $146 billion worth of additional funding across the life of the white paper to 2030, and then over the next decade Defence will receive approximately $308 billion under the government's new financial plan. I suppose what I am trying to establish is that, if that was the feedback you were receiving from the public in numeric terms, the support for increased defence spending simply was not there, how was that filtered through and how was the decision made to ramp up a very substantial increase in funding?

Mr Pezzullo-I refer to my earlier answer. In the end, the decision to resource Defence at the level that is articulated in the white paper and associated other documents such as the budget is made by the government. Obviously, all of the information that was gathered during course of the 2008 public consultation process, or indeed independently of that process-as you would be aware, a number of studies came out with quantitative details that go to these issues as well-was made available to ministers in the lead-up to their final deliberations and decision on the white paper. I have no doubt the government took into account the views of the Australian community as it saw fit. In the end, it was a matter for ministers to decide.

Senator LUDLAM-I accept that and I think that is entirely appropriate. But obviously in terms of the
strategic priorities and the kind of asks that you are putting forward to government, it then informs the government's assessment of how much that is going to cost. So you are still essentially running counter to public opinion in terms of the demands that you put on government whereby political decisions were made. Does that concern you at all?

Mr Pezzullo-Again, all I can really say is that the government did not commission the Department of
Defence to conduct a community consultation process. It commissioned a panel of eminent Australians from a variety of walks of Australian life. The Department of Defence supported that process logistically and administratively. We did not express a view; we are a department of state and we do not have a view about what the Australian public can, should or ought to think about various issues. Our job is to try to provide advice to ministers and they collectively as the government come to a view about things. Again, all I can say is that all of that information was available to the government well ahead of its final considerations on the white paper and it took it into account to the extent it saw fit.

Senator LUDLAM-Can I test what you are saying to ensure that I am clear? Are you saying that public
opinion actually played no part in your thinking and that you left those decisions to the minister?

Mr Pezzullo-As an Australian public servant, as an official, it is my job to act in a completely apolitical, non-partisan way. I am required, as are all of the officers appearing here-both military and civilian-to operate in a dispassionate way and to set aside my own views. That deals with part of your question. There is no sense that we bring to bear not only what we think about an issue in personal terms but also what we think the Australian people think.

Senator LUDLAM-That is not quite the question I am putting. I am not asking whether your personal
opinions came into play. The government paid for a process of data collection to assess community opinion. Did that then play any role in your thinking about the sort of propositions that you put to government, or did you leave that to one side?

Mr Pezzullo-Those are matters properly for governments to consider.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. Did the people who were drafting the white paper view those surveys?

Mr Pezzullo-As Minister Fitzgibbon made clear at the time of the launch of the community consultation report earlier this year and as I think from memory the panel chairman states in his foreword, there was dialogue and interaction with the white paper team, of which I was the head. You asked about the authors of the white paper. I am the principal author, so I am accountable within that definition. There was discussion between us, so the views of the Australian public that were relevant in the minds of the chair, the deputy chair and other members of the panel were conveyed to me and so on and so forth. That was consistent with the practice established in 2000, but it was done for no reason other than to keep me informed of the deliberations of the panel. It was the community consultation panel that then came to a view about how to capture the mood
or the sentiment of the Australian community on these matters.

Senator LUDLAM-I would like to go to the panel next. I have one final question on the surveys; that is, on the actual data provided rather than the qualitative work that was done as part of the work of the panel. Were you aware at the time of the drafting of the report that support for increased defence expenditure had collapsed between 2000 and 2008 effectively by half? Was that something that you were aware of?

Mr Pezzullo-The best way for me to answer that question is to say that I had complete visibility of the public research that had been commissioned on behalf of the panel by the Department of Defence. We were doing it as a service to the panel and I was aware of it.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay.

Mr Pezzullo-You characterise it as a collapse. All I can say is that I was aware of the data. But my
response is, as I said earlier, that in my role and, indeed, the role of my team-and I am sure this goes for the secretary, the CDF and other senior officials-we set that awareness to one side. It is not our job to decide what the Australian community really thinks and what bearing that might have on public policy decisions. That is a matter for government.

Senator LUDLAM-If government opinion polls had fallen from 75 per cent to 30 per cent they would
characterise it as a collapse. However, I respect that that is not a judgment that you would be making. But you were certainly aware that that work had been done and those were the results.

Mr Pezzullo-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I now refer to the panel. The panel's report discusses the need for
meaningful ongoing engagement of the community on defence policy making. The Australian Greens certainly support that. I am trying to assess the degree to which that was actually borne out in reality. Perhaps we can start with the basics. In our discussion, I think last October, when Mr Warner was at the table, you stated-and at the time it was approximate-that the community consultation process would cost about $400,000 and you thought you might come in under budget at about $310,000. Are you able to confirm the final cost of the
consultation component?

Mr Warner-Figures before me are $315,657. So I was out by $5,000.

Senator LUDLAM-Not by much. Can you tell us how many secretariat staff serviced the panel?

Mr Warner-I cannot, but perhaps Mr Pezzullo can.

Mr Pezzullo-Because it was a part-year event, at its peak the core team supporting the panel numbered one full-time white paper officer plus a number of support staff-ADF personnel either in continuous full-time service or regulars. But they were only there for a part year. In FTE terms, and I would need to confirm this, if I averaged that over the year it would have been approximately the equivalent of one FTE AFS, noting a surge in the middle of the year in support of the actual activity. Over the course of the year it would have averaged out as one full-time equivalent officer.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. But in practical effect it was different people or people with other
responsibilities at the time as well?

Mr Pezzullo-That is right. At the peak of the travelling series of meetings that were being held in capital cities and regional centres, the team would have had three or four people directly supporting the panel arranging venues, making bookings and ensuring that panel members could get there et cetera. But if I then averaged that number out over the year, it would be roughly about one FTE. If I need to correct that, of course I will.

Senator LUDLAM-That is fine. Can you tell us how many times the panel met privately to discuss and
analyse the process as it was underway? I am not interested in the substantive content of the meetings but in how many times the panel met. I believe about 30 public meetings were held in all states and territories, which is pretty comprehensive. How often did the panel meet privately to discuss the ongoing work?

Mr Pezzullo-I think I had best take that on notice. There were a number of meetings where the panel was generous enough to ask us to come along so that they could share their views with us. In addition to that there were meetings that I understand they held privately with all members physically present. In at least one case as I recall it, we were trying to make arrangements for a video or telephone conference. Because I am not aware of the full range of meetings, some of which were private meetings of the panel, I had best take that question
on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I might need to direct this question to the minister. The community
consultation panel recommended that 100 leading Australians become ADF ambassadors. Are you aware whether that idea is being progressed? If so, has funding been set aside for it?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I am certainly aware of the recommendation, but I do not think we have
actually taken any action on it at this stage.

Mr Pezzullo-I can amplify that. The department has yet to finalise its advice on how best to take that
forward. It is something that is not yet before government. Therefore, it has not yet been decided by it.

Senator LUDLAM-So it is not budgeted as such. Thank you for that. About 450 submissions were
received, but not all of them were placed online. Can you tell us why only a selection of the submissions were placed online?

Mr Pezzullo-I think I had best take that on notice. My understanding was that where it was evident from the submission itself that the proponent or the person making the submission was happy for it to become public knowledge we took a decision to put it online. In some cases it was addressed in such a way that a reasonable person would think that it was a private submission-that is, it was from an individual. I had better take that on notice and talk to the staff who made those decisions. I know that we did not willy-nilly come to the view that if it came from a private citizen that they would necessarily want their advice put on the internet.

Senator LUDLAM-I know that committees here have similar guidelines about rules for publication and
so on. I would like you to provide the grounds on which you made those decisions and a breakdown of the ones that were withheld from publication, the reason for that and whether many contained offensive language or vilification or adverse comments as it is defined in here. One reason that did catch my eye was that submissions were over the word limit. I have not come across that before. What was the word limit for submissions to the white paper?

Mr Pezzullo-In the case of online submissions, or e-submissions, we tried to keep the bandwidth
requirements manageable-we put plenty of strains on our system-so we articulated a word limit. I cannot remember what it was; I would need to take that on notice. But we did not preclude or put any conditions on people who wanted to send things in as physical hardcopy. Again, I will take that on notice and check the facts.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that as part of whatever you are able to provide in answer to the
previous question. I would also like to know if the word limit was really a major factor in your thinking. How would you characterise the bulk of the submissions? Were you reasonably happy with the quality and depth of research and thought that went into them?

Mr Pezzullo-I do not think it is my role to be the evaluator of what the community at large wishes to
submit to such a process. Obviously organisations and funded bodies were clearly able to demonstrate in their submission that they had a depth of knowledge and a capacity to provide more sophisticated submissions. That said, a number of submissions that appeared to be from private citizens were quite comprehensive and, indeed, quite complex in some cases. But in terms of their quality and whether they met some kind of pass mark, I do not any think it would be appropriate for me to sit in judgment on that.

Senator LUDLAM-It is probably not appropriate for me to do that either. But my reading of the
submissions that you published indicated a high standard and that people had obviously put in quite a degree of thought, time and effort.

Mr Pezzullo-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-An analysis has been conducted of the submissions in four categories: strategic
international; funding for defence; miscellaneous; and various topics. In the 136 submissions that were made available online in those four categories, the analysis looked at the frequency of major points of interest. I can provide this document for you. They found that a sizeable majority of the submissions that you published were arguing quite coherently for less defence spending-17 called for more, 66 called for less. Further, 81 submissions were broadly critical about the current direction and priorities of the ADF and 21 were broadly supportive. So it was three to one or four to one. Again, in terms of Australia's alliance with the United States, 49 submissions expressed concern and five were supportive. The sense I get and the sense that the researcher got from evaluating the submissions in a bit more detail is that they are pitching for quite a fundamental reform of ADF priorities and spending. That seems to key into the quantitative research that I mentioned earlier. How was material evaluated and how did it feed into your thinking?

Mr Pezzullo-I would like to establish something first. I infer from your question that this is an evaluation of those online submissions. I do not recall it being an analysis in the community consultation report itself.

Senator LUDLAM-That is correct.

Mr Pezzullo-This is research conducted by an independent person.

Senator LUDLAM-It is. I am happy to provide it to you. It was done subsequent to the publication.

Mr Pezzullo-I understand. I just wanted to be clear about what I was dealing with. I have not seen that and I take your description of the summary of that research at face value. I can really only answer that question in the same way as that answered the question on the quantitative research that was provided initially to the panel, whether it was public opinion polling, the records of the workshops or town hall meetings that were prepared for the panel by staff, or the submissions which I know the panel diligently read. There were several steps in this process. The panel was chaired by Mr Loosley and included a number of other persons from both sides of politics, an academic and a retired military officer. The panel came to a view and that was there for everyone to see in
the public report of the community consultation process. That was in turn provided to the Minister for
Defence, who then circulated it more widely to the relevant ministers who were going to make a decision on the white paper. As I said earlier in my response to your similar line of questioning on the quantitative research, what ministers made of the summaries of the community consultation process is really a question that you would have to direct to a minister representing the government. In the end, of course, it was the government that decided the level of expenditure, the shape of the force and what priorities that force would have. That ultimately constituted the decisions they made in the white paper.

Senator LUDLAM-I am not trying to overdo this, but there seems to be quite a strong disconnect
between the advice that the panel took, the advice that you took from the public and from the expert bodies and the advice from the non-government organisations that bothered to make submissions that were shunted off to government. What exactly was informing your views? If I am reading this entirely wrong, please correct me. From where were you getting your information if that kind of material was being sent to government because it was of a political nature? Who were you listening to?

Mr Pezzullo-Me, personally?

Senator LUDLAM-Yes, in drafting report.

Mr Pezzullo-I am a public servant and I draw on a whole range of information sources to do not only the work I did in relation to the white paper but also in terms of my current day job. I was getting information from a variety of sources. Senator Trood spoke earlier about the intelligence assessment process and we had a discussion about that. There is a range of information sources that go into the development of a white paper. All I can say in answer to your question-and you asked me personally-is that I took as comprehensive and as wide a range of data and sources into account in coming to the view that I came to. Obviously, I then worked through the secretary and the CDF, to whom I was directly accountable and they ultimately made a decision about what to provide to the minister, who in turn provided certain submissions to his colleagues through the cabinet process. I can really answer your question only by saying that I drew on a wide range of sources and applied my best judgment to those sources in coming up with draft assessments, views and conclusions initially to the secretary of the department and the CDF, and then beyond them to the
government more generally.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I might come back to that. There is repeated reference in the community consultation panel report of independent surveys commissioned by the panel. Correct me if I am wrong, but those results have not actually been published and they are not referenced. The actual source data has not been made public. Is that correct?

Mr Pezzullo-I think that is right. I think the report talks about the fact that it drew upon the results of
quantitative work. I will take that on notice in case there is some technical annex sitting somewhere that I have forgotten about. But I think your characterisation of the situation is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-They to refer to one Lowy Institute poll of July 2008, which I believe is in the public
domain.

Mr Pezzullo-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you tell us where that data is, who conducted the surveys and who was
responsible for analysing the results?

Mr Pezzullo-I will take that on notice. It does go to public opinion research polling which was conducted through the course 2008 following a precedent set in 2000 and which was commissioned by the Department of Defence, but at the request of the independent community consultation panel. As to both on the one hand who conducted it-sample sizes and the rest of it that they employed-I would need to take that on notice because I do not know to what extent that remains confidential.
The second part of your question asks who evaluated that information. All of that information-that is, the departmentally commissioned research-was made available to the panel in the first instance because it was done as a service for it. The panel members obviously drew upon it in their deliberations as a panel in reaching their views, which are described and laid out in the report of the community consultation process. You mentioned the Lowy quantitative work. In addition to the process I have just described, we made sure that panel members were aware of studies such the Lowy study that had any kind of reference to community attitudes or community views about such matters.

Senator LUDLAM-If you are taking some of that on notice, I am interested to know how many surveys were conducted and what the categories were. Most importantly, can you give us any reason why that source should not be tabled and made public?

Mr Pezzullo-That will be part of what I take on notice. I will review it and consult as required and as
appropriate and come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-The reason that I am pursuing this in a bit of detail is that constituents have conveyed to me-including people who participated in some of this work-that the results of the surveys are used in the panel's report essentially to diminish the value of submissions that Australians put because they are being benchmarked against some invisible survey data. For example, page six of the report says: Some groups were very supportive of the ADF although others wanted less government emphasis on defence. While those views are acknowledged in this report, the Panel was concerned to evaluate the extent to which such views were representative of the broader community. In essence, that data is being used to make quite a strong case that anybody who comes to you pushing for less defence funding or different priorities is somehow at odds with general public opinion. It would greatly assist our work and the defensibility of the white paper as a whole if that material were to be made public.

Mr Pezzullo-I understand the underlying rationale for your request for access to that data. As I said, I have taken that on notice. I will consult as required and come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-I would greatly appreciate that. I do not have too much more on the white paper. I
think some of the other matters will probably have to wait until later in the evening. Were you a bit surprised by the strength of the reaction by Mark Thomson in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute document? He has evaluated it in a fairly limited amount of time. He says in the cover note in this document: It's disappointing, therefore, that ‘the most comprehensive White Paper of the modern era' has been followed by the least comprehensive Defence budget papers of the past decade.
I suspect that this goes to some of the issues that other senators raised earlier in the day.

Senator Faulkner-I have listened carefully to the question and I think it is probably a little beyond the norm of questions to ask whether an official was surprised by the reaction of a commentator, regardless of how eminent the commentator might be. I ask you to consider rephrasing your question if it is going to be asked of Mr Pezzullo so he might feel more at ease in answering it.

Senator LUDLAM-I will see if I can walk that line.

Senator Faulkner-I am sure you can.

Senator LUDLAM-I am sure you are well aware of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute document to
which I am referring.

Mr Pezzullo-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-The institute is a government funded defence think tank. Minister, I might be better off directing this question to you. What is your response to the contention that has been put by ASPI that-

Senator Faulkner-To be honest, I have not had an opportunity to read it. I have been rather tied up in the past week and half. I have not read Mr Thomson's report yet; it is substantive one I know. I am looking forward to having an opportunity to do so. I can perhaps make some general comments, but I have to acknowledge that I have not read it. Let me make some general comments to you. I always believe in being honest about these things. I am looking forward to having an opportunity and having the time to read it. The white paper does set out a very clear plan for Australia's defence funding needs for the next generation: Delivering Force 2030. I think there has been some canvassing at the table today about the fact that for the first time we have a situation where a government has committed to funding arrangements for defence for the life of a white paper. Obviously, long-term funding stability is essential for long-term planning. I think it is essential for meeting the future strategic challenges that we face. I am happy to say that to you and to do my
best with some other broad questions, but you will need to understand that in asking any questions of me I personally have not had the opportunity to read Mr Thomson's analysis. I am sure officials have and that is why I suggested to you that perhaps you could look at rephrasing your questions if you want to delve into some of those specifics. I certainly encourage officials to assist you. It is just a little difficult to assist you with a question that was framed in the way that it was.

Senator LUDLAM-I put to you, Minister, that it is pretty strong language from a government-funded
think tank, noting that the white paper, in his words, is the most comprehensive of the modern era-

Senator Faulkner-I heard that evidence earlier.

Senator LUDLAM-but then goes on to say that the budget papers are not costed or affordable, there are no tangible targets, that the documentation is deliberately vague and public and parliamentary scrutiny is thus tightly curtailed and so is Defence's accountability, describing a downward spiral of disclosure in Defence. Given the very long time horizon over which enormous amounts of funds are to be spent, I would have thought there would be some concern if some fairly highly qualified people funded by the government to analyse these sorts of matters are so sharply critical so soon after the production of the budget.

Senator Faulkner-You asked officials to comment on that a moment ago. Let me make some comments. But I reflect again that I have not had an opportunity to read Mr Thomson's analysis and I do not want to pretend to you that I have. It is true that the government is supporting the Defence budget with three per cent average real growth to 2017-18 and then 2.2 per cent average real growth from 2017 to 2029-30. As you know and as you heard earlier today, Defence will also receive fixed indexation at 2.5 per cent each year to 2029-30 rather than the indexing funding to what I think would be fairly described as a volatile non-farm GDP deflator. I think you are aware that the new funding model will provide Defence with $308 billion over the next decade to 2018-19. Over the 21-year life of the white paper, the new funding arrangements will result in Defence receiving around $146 billion in additional funding. Of course, you are also aware that, as was canvassed earlier today, the program of reform and efficiencies will generate around $20 billion worth of savings over the next decade. I can certainly say that. Even though I have not read Mr Thomson's analysis, I
can certainly make those broad comments to you. If you want to focus in on some particular part of the analysis in Mr Thomson's recent paper, I will try to assist you if I can. If I am unable to, I will certainly ask officials to do so.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

 

SWINE FLU

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Lt Gen. Hurley-Again, I will bat for someone else on this one. The exercise comes under the purview of the Chief of Joint Operations but I have a briefing on the swine flu if you permit me to work my way through it.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Lt Gen. Hurley-You can ask questions as I go.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay.

Lt Gen. Hurley-The ADF, in consultation with the participating United States forces, has put in place
preventive predeployment measures to exclude any personnel with influenza like illnesses or symptoms departing the continental United States and other locations on either service or civilian aircraft and naval vessels. The United States has a clear policy on the identification and management of H1N1, which is derived from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This policy is consistent with Australian policy. Preborder screening and arrival procedures have been put in place which will verify the health status of incoming United States personnel and the entry locations to Australia will be through airports and air bases and seaports controlled by Commonwealth government agencies, further ensuring appropriate screening and management of personnel entering Australia. There is a bit more detail if you wish to go in to it.

Senator LUDLAM-Is that a policy that you are able to table?

Lt Gen. Hurley-These were some talking points relating to the issue, Senator.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you for that. If somebody from one of the foreign services comes down with
something like that after the operations are underway is there a process to be followed? Could you step us through how that would operate?

Lt Gen. Hurley-Senator, I would be stepping beyond my area. I can tell you what happens before they get here. I would assume that if they come down with H1N1 or such symptoms when they arrive they would be treated like we treat anyone in Australia because our Commonwealth and state health authorities would be stepping into that, and Defence links into them, as with our own personnel in relation to identification, quarantining and so forth. Then there would be assessments on the impact of the exercise, depending on where it happened, how it happened and so forth. I can get someone to speak more fully on that.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will come back to you on that. However, that will be formalised in
exercise instructions and I think it will be exactly as described. If there is any variation to that we will come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that. I gather that Commonwealth and state health authorities are quite intimately involved and would remain so. It is not handled entirely by Defence?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Major General Alexander is on the committee that looks at H1N1 at a
national level.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you, gentlemen, for that. Casting the net a little more broadly, can you tell us what precautions have been taken to avoid the introduction of germs, seeds and other forms of pests with the importation of military equipment and troops for exercises? I gather there are up to 1,650 armoured and other vehicles involved in the exercises altogether. Are they all brought in through quarantine? We have to chuck out food when we go through an airport-screening process. What do the United States military have to do?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We have a very well-developed procedure with the Australian Quarantine
and Inspection Service. All the vehicles that come in are checked and cleared by them.

Senator LUDLAM-One by one?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Yes. They deploy to the point of departure for the equipment that is being
deployed to the Australian area.

Senator LUDLAM-Could you clarify that for us? Are they assessed by quarantine officials or customs
officials in the United States prior to arrival, or do Australian officials do that assessment here?

Lt Gen. Hurley-In the past we have done it with Australian officials. We have been working with US
Pacific Command over the last number of years to accredit personnel from the United States to do this as well-to accredit with Australian Customs qualifications. Frankly, I am not quite sure how far that has gone and what the mix will be on this exercise. Again, we can come back to you. It is something of which we have been very conscious and we have worked hard with the United States over the last couple of years.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I gather that this exercise will be somewhat larger than that which
occurred two years ago. Are you aware of any recorded incidents where species or weeds might have gone feral as a result of these exercises? Are there any breaches of quarantine that you are aware of?

Lt Gen. Hurley-I am not aware of any, Senator, no.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I am not aware of any. Again, we will check.

Senator LUDLAM-Just correct the record if that happens.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will check and correct the record if we need to.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. Is there a published final public environmental review statement for
Talisman Sabre 2009?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We always do an environmental impact statement. Again, we will provide
that to you.

Senator LUDLAM-I gather that there is already a draft in the public domain, is there not?

Lt Gen. Hurley-The notes that I have here, Senator, are that major exercises are routinely subjected to a thorough environmental risk assessment as part of exercise planning and environmental impact assessment processes. In the case of Talisman Sabre 2009, environmental consultants Sinclair Knight Merz were engaged by Defence to develop a public environmental report for the exercise as part of the environmental impact assessment process. Public consultation took place during October and November 2008. I do not know whether or not it has been published, but we can find that out for you.

Senator LUDLAM-I believe that a draft was published, but it does not seem as though a final version has yet been published.

Lt Gen. Hurley-I cannot answer that question.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I think it will be published before the exercise and, when published, we will
table it to the committee.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. In February, which was the last time I asked some questions on this subject, I asked for an estimation of the overall cost of the exercise to the Australian taxpayer. CDF, you said you thought it was about $15 million in round numbers for the cost of the ADF contribution. I think you said, ‘There are some other elements as well. I will take that on notice if you do not mind.' I do not believe we heard anything back, so forgive me if that information was passed through. Are you able to clarify that and to give us a final number?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I cannot clarify that tonight. I do not know whether General Hurley has any
information.

Lt Gen. Hurley-No.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I think it is a lot more than $15 million. We will come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-As I said, I apologise if that information was forwarded but I do not believe that it
has been.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Either way it is not a problem. We will come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I guess that is probably to hand, and we are back here tomorrow.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. Can you tell us your process for consultation with traditional owners or
native title claimants in the areas of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia? How are they consulted and how are their views taken into account in war games in general, but in TS09 in particular?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will come back to you tomorrow on that one. We did come back to you
on the issue of the cost of the exercise.

Senator LUDLAM-It is lucky that I qualified my question.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-The response you got read as follows:
The planning for the exercise is still under way with the final planning conference scheduled to be conducted late April. With many planning uncertainties it is not possible at this stage to provide a precise figure of the cost of conducting the exercise. An estimated cost of staging the exercise is around $48 million. This amount has the additional cost associated with executing this activity and does not include ongoing personnel force element or equipment costs of ownership by the
ADF.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you tell us the date of that response?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-It does not state. It is just a consolidated list.

Senator LUDLAM-Just come back with that later if you can. Thank you very much for that.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We believe it was provided to you some time in April.

Lt Gen. Hurley-The questions relating to consultation, environment and so forth are more in the purview of the Deputy Secretary, Defence Support Group, Mr Martin Bowles. Because we said we are looking at services tonight, he has gone.

Senator LUDLAM-So we have sent him home already. I might come back, if that is all right, Chair, for a couple more questions tomorrow on those issues in particular. In answer to questions on notice-this might have to come through you, Minister-the government stated that you are satisfied that precautions are being taken to avoid exposing marine mammals to high-power sonar. I understand that such devices will be used again by the United States Navy in the course of these exercises. Does the Australian Navy deploy high-power active sonar in exercises like this?

Senator Faulkner-Senator, you have invited me to assist you.

Senator LUDLAM-Sorry, that is part two of the question, Minister.

Senator Faulkner-I might ask Chief of Navy as I think he might be more expert on this than I am.

Senator LUDLAM-He was quick on his feet.

Vice Adm. Crane-No, we do not. We use medium-level sonar in our vessels. We do not use the highpower sonar, as do some of our allies.

Senator LUDLAM-Have the medium-power sonar devices been assessed for their impact on marine
mammals?

Vice Adm. Crane-Yes, they have. The Royal Australian Navy has a very good relationship with a number of environmental groups. We value that relationship. There is an environmental plan that we use when we are operating at sea. On regular occasions we share that plan. We take positive and proactive action in known areas of mammal activity and, indeed, in preparation for Talisman Sabre 09, in conjunction with the Defence, Science and Technology Organisation, we conducted a survey in an area where we had planned to conduct some of our sonar operations to ascertain the degree of marine life that was present. The results of that have been used in the planning for the areas where we will conduct sonar operations.

Senator LUDLAM-Is that information shared with the United States Navy?

Vice Adm. Crane-Yes, it is. It is shared through the Chief of Joint Operations and his planning teams for the exercise.

Senator LUDLAM-How do you conduct exercises? What does that look like on the ground? That is not
really accurate. In the midst of these operations, is it just sailors looking out to see whether whales are breaching in order to decide whether or not to operate this equipment?

Vice Adm. Crane-No, it is a bit more than that. As I said, we have conducted survey activity well ahead of the exercise to establish the presence of marine life and mammals, in particular, beaked whales.

Senator LUDLAM-And it has been assessed in that area?

Vice Adm. Crane-It has been assessed.

Senator LUDLAM-And they have been noted in that area?

Vice Adm. Crane-That activity has been noted in the area and that has caused us to re-evaluate where we would conduct some of our exercises. When we are operating at sea it is very much about observing the marine life, knowing where the migration areas are and taking the necessary precautions.

Senator LUDLAM-So it comes down to sailors keeping an eye out to see whether there are whale
breaches nearby and, if not, they go ahead?

Vice Adm. Crane-We do that as well as taking cognisance of those areas in which we know there is
marine life activity. So it is not simply putting somebody on watch on a bridge; that is an additional
precaution.

Senator LUDLAM-I do not want to tie us up here, because I have a couple of other questions. Is there any material or any more detailed material that you are able to make available to the committee on your management plans or your precautions relating to marine mammals and sonar?

Vice Adm. Crane-I would be very comfortable to share with you our environmental plan. That is
something that we do regularly.

Senator LUDLAM-That would be greatly appreciated.

Vice Adm. Crane-I could provide that.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. Can you tell us who the overall commander is for TS09, his or her rank
and their base?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will come back to you tomorrow.

Senator LUDLAM-You do not necessarily need to call them up; I just want to know who it is.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will come back to you tomorrow.

Senator LUDLAM-Has that position been established yet, or is it still up in the air?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Somebody has been appointed. They are probably not quite into it yet, but we will come back to you tomorrow.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I note in answer to a question on notice that about 8,000 Australian
personnel will be participating. Can you give us a rough breakdown of what services they will be drawn from-that is, the division roughly between Army, Navy, Air Force and special services-and the rough proportions of civilian to military?

Air Chief Marshal Houston-We will take that on notice. Tomorrow we will bring somebody in who is
right across all the details and you can run through those questions again, if you like.

Senator LUDLAM-All right. Rather than taking up too much of the committee's time, I will load you up
with a couple of questions on notice, if I could. I require the estimated total tonnage of munitions-bombs, shells, rockets and small arms ammunition-fired or detonated in the Shoalwater test facility.

Lt Gen. Hurley-I think in the questions on notice we responded that that was information we would feel uncomfortable about giving, given the intelligence value to people to know what we carry, how frequently we use it and the nature of activities we undertake with it.

Senator LUDLAM-I certainly was not seeking to go down to that level of detail; I am just looking for
some higher level figures in as much detail as you feel comfortable in providing.

Senator Faulkner-I think it is proper to take that on notice. The spirit of this is, if there is understanding of the point that is made to you about those concerns, let us see what information we can provide to you. We will look closely at that and come back to you.

Senator LUDLAM-I am comfortable with that.

Senator Faulkner-That is probably the sensible way of doing it.

Senator LUDLAM-That is fine. Lastly, for the benefit of whoever appears tomorrow, I am interested in
contingency plans for search and safekeeping of foreign trespassers. I know there have been a number of incidents before when peace activists have trespassed into the live fire area. What are your plans around those sorts of incidents if they occur again? What are your official liaison processes for liaising with people who are undertaking those sorts of activities close to the operations area? I will leave it at that.

Air Chief Marshal Houston-Okay. Thank you very much.

Lt Gen. Hurley-General Alexander has come back. He can answer the question you asked about
personnel contracting H1N1 in the actual exercise area.

Major Gen. Alexander-In relation to H1N1 09 and Talisman Sabre, a comprehensive plan is in place
relating to the exercise and the flu. We have discussed this in detail with health planners in the US and they have agreed to exit screen all United States participants on the exercise. In other words, they will go through a process of ensuring that there are no ill people prior to them leaving the various United States bases. Prior to arrival in the various exercise areas we will undergo the same procedures that are currently occurring around the country.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay.

Major Gen. Alexander-So there will be a positive pratique process. All ships and all planes will have to
declare that there are no ill personnel on board and, as long as we are at the contained phase within Australia, there will have to be thermal screening in accordance with the current standards within Australia. Those are the procedures that are in place to ensure that we do not have flu infected personnel arrive in Australia. If somebody becomes ill within an exercise area, we will proceed with, in effect, the same principles that apply currently in Australian jurisdictions. Potentially, three jurisdictions are involved. We have already communicated with the various state public health departments and state senior health officers to ensure that we fit in and coordinate with their public health plans. That will involve any potential cases being isolated, tested and Tamiflued, and all personnel who are in close contact with or have been in close contact with these
persons will be isolated until results are obtained.

Senator LUDLAM-No matter their degree of seniority they will go right through the whole exercise?

Major Gen. Alexander-Seniority does not come in to it.

Senator LUDLAM-Thanks very much for providing that.

 

 

 

 

 Mr Pezzullo-In response to a series of questions yesterday from Senator Ludlam, we undertook to
research the background to those issues and to try to get back within these sittings. We have been able to do that. If you can bear with me. The senator asked a number of questions, which fell into multiple parts. I will go through each of those in the sequence you asked them and during the course of my answer I will table certain documents that you sought access to.

Firstly, you asked about the process and the meetings in particular that the community consultation panel that supported the white paper undertook. In particular, you asked how many times the panel met in private. We have consulted the chair of the community consultation panel, Mr Stephen Loosley, of course a former member of this place. He has indicated that the panel met regularly in private on quite a number of occasions. He said that he would have to consult detailed records but as a benchmark, which I think is a pretty sound substitute, he said that he, along with the panel members who undertook the public meetings, of which there were 30, met regularly before each of those meetings. There was always a quorum of the panel that met in advance of those 30 meetings.

They also had a number of meetings and phone hook-ups to discuss the survey questions and results, which I will come to later, as well as a number of meetings that supported the writing of the report itself. Members of the defence department secretariat were present at quite a number of these meetings, but not all of them. On our best mutual recollection and calculation there were at least 30 meetings that pertained to the public meetings plus, say, a dozen or so meetings or phone hook-ups related to those other proceedings. He and I are both confident that upwards of 40 meetings would be an accurate figure.

In relation to the community consultation panel submissions process, how many submissions from the public were received and how were some of those put online on the website, who made the decision to publish and release those submissions in that form, on what grounds were certain submissions released and others not released and so on-the answer to that multipart question is as follows. As you know, 453 submissions were received in total. The breakdown of those submissions is that 190 were received electronically and the balance, 263, were received via post or fax, and therefore deemed to be hard copy. Of that 453, 213 were published on the website, some of those having already been received electronically, and others were scanned in and placed on the website. Submissions were placed online in all cases where the authors had specifically given their authority for that to occur, authors having been asked to do so. Three submissions received of the 453 were not published and placed on the website on the grounds that they were deemed by my staff to be offensive either in relation to ethnicity or other cultures or states. Or frankly that they were just downright rude. Three respondents who had given their permission originally to have their submissions placed online later contacted my staff to say that they had changed their mind and that they would prefer that their submissions be removed, so we obviously immediately removed those. So three were not put online initially because they were deemed to be offensive and three were withdrawn.

Of the remaining submissions, some 240, which were predominantly received as the hard copy submissions I spoke of earlier, they were not posted to the website as we did not have express permission from the authors to do so. Authors of those submissions were asked to agree to the statement: ‘I agree to my submission being published on the Defence website.' Unless we had an active authorisation we did not proceed. I should add that you asked about word limits and also the criteria put around the suitability of submissions. The caveat that was put on the website when the community consultation process commenced was expressed in the following terms:

Submissions may not be published if they promote a product or a service, contain offensive language or the sentiments expressed are liable to offend or vilify sections of the community.

As I said, I made reference to a few of those that fell under that category. It continued:
Submissions that exceed the word limit may also be excluded and attachments will not be published.
I will come to the word limit in a moment. No hard copy submissions were excluded because they exceeded any word limit, because no word limit was put on hard copy submissions, and certainly none were, if you like, not published simply because they expressed views critical of Defence, which was one of the concerns expressed. Indeed, that would be obvious from looking at a range of the submissions, a number of which are highly critical of how we go about our business.

In terms of the issue of word limits, there was a word limit placed on electronic submissions. That was simply a matter of managing bandwidth. Those wishing to make larger submissions and who did not wish to proceed through a hard copy submission, where there was no word limit, were encouraged to make multiple submissions and a number of people broke their online submissions down accordingly.

Finally, I turn to the issue of public opinion research, how it was conducted and what the process was in relation to that. The community consultation process was supported by the department initially by way of our providing copies of independently undertaken research that was not undertaken for any reason to do with Defence, namely, a report prepared by Mr Ian McAllister, of the ANU, for ASPI in August 2008, and that is referenced in the final report at page 5, and similarly a report commissioned and published by the Lowy Institute, also in 2008, Australia and the world: public opinion and foreign policy, which is also referenced in the publication at page 5.

In addition, as I said yesterday, some Department of Defence commissioned research was undertaken. This was done in two instalments. I will just go through that carefully. Having consulted with relevant stakeholders I am now in a position to offer that to you by way of tabling. I will just describe the two public research products, which we will table. The first piece of public research was work that had been undertaken internally and independently of the white paper process but was considered by the panel to be highly relevant to its work. Defence had, through the course of 2007, come to a view that it needed to commission some research into community attitudes to Defence, particularly in terms of gauging how the general community saw our standards, our ethics, how we went about our business, how we treated people and so on. That report was made available to Defence in June 2008. It was prepared by Erbis, which is a specialist researcher in this field.
It was commissioned by the Defence Public Affairs Organisation and I have been given authority to table that report if you are interested.

A second piece of research, also conducted by Erbis, was then undertaken. This was specifically undertaken at the request of the panel. Once they read the June 2008 report and they found that it addressed many of the issues that they otherwise would have sought public opinion research on there were a couple of matters that they felt needed some further attention. Once you read the tabled report you will understand what they are. Erbis was commissioned explicitly by the white paper team to undertake some follow-up research. That was conducted in the latter part of 2008 and made available to the panel in October. I am in a position to table both eports if you are interested.

CHAIR-Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-Senator Ludlam had some questions that were presented yesterday. I believe the first one was: whose officials do the AQIS check? This refers to exercise Talisman Sabre planned for mid to end July this year. It is a joint process between AQIS and approved US officials, both US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Defense personnel. Both groups have been trained and accredited by AQIS, which is done conjointly between the Americans and AQIS.

Senator LUDLAM-This is relevant to the questions on quarantine?

Air Cdre Meier-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-The next question was: is Defence aware of any quarantine breaches, feral weeds, plants and so on? To the best of Defence's knowledge, we are not aware of any quarantine breaches as a result of Talisman Sabre. As I said, AQIS has the lead in developing the procedures and they are happy with the procedures that are in force.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-Your next question was to do with the cost of the Talisman Sabre exercise for 2009. The additional costs borne by the Australian Department of Defence for the exercise will be about A$48 million. Of note, the American's additional costs to participate in the exercise will be about US$212 million. Those numbers will be refined once the exercise is over and we actually get the fine detail of the fuel usage and things like that.

Senator LUDLAM-Would our figure be in Australian dollars and theirs in US dollars?

Air Cdre Meier-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-Your fourth question was to do with views of Indigenous people and how they were
taken into account when planning the exercise. With all of our major ADF ranges, including those being used for Talisman Sabre, we have an ongoing arrangement where we consult regularly with the local Indigenous people at all of those locations. In particular, we use the local land councils for each one and obviously the procedures vary depending on what the local land council wants, but essentially they are involved throughout the process of our preparation for an exercise. They are also involved when we are developing any of the ranges or any of the major works that we do on those ranges.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-The next question was to do with Navy's environmental plan. I believe the Chief of
Navy can answer that.

Vice Adm. Crane-I will make those documents available to you. The RAN Environmental Management
Plan is, in fact, on the internet website at navy.gov.au/environment. However, we have printed a copy and we will make that available. Also available is an Australian book of reference on RAN environmental management. That is a book of reference that is issued to all of our ships. I have included a copy of my strategic policy statement, which was released last month in relation to stewardship of the environment in our operating environment, and also an assortment of guides provided to our people in relation to environmental management issues. They are all available.

Senator LUDLAM-That catches the cetacean issues that we discussed yesterday?

Vice Adm. Crane-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you very much.

Air Cdre Meier-You then had a few more questions. The next one was: who was the overall commander for the Talisman Sabre exercise? It is an exercise of joint command. From the Australian side, the overall command is vested in the Chief of Defence Force, and from the American side, Commander US Forces Pacific. It is then delegated down to General Evans, Chief of Joint Operations Australia, and the Commanding General US Marine Forces Pacific, who actually conduct the exercise. As part of the exercise we form a single joint task force, Joint Task Force 503. The command of that is vested in Commander III Marine Expeditionary Force US Marines, based in Hawaii. Underneath that there is a series of specific taskforces. For example, there is an air task force, logistics and special operations. Some of those are commanded by Australians and some are commanded by Americans. If there is an Australian commander then his deputy is American. If there is an
American commander then his deputy is an Australian. So much so that the Deputy Commander of Task Force 503 is Air Vice Marshal Skidmore, who is Air Commander Australia.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you for providing that.

Air Cdre Meier-You asked for the estimated total tonnage of munitions fired in the Shoalwater Bay area as part of the exercise. I am afraid I cannot give you precise information on that yet. We have asked the Americans to provide us with their estimated expenditure and we will provide that in due course when we actually know the final details.

Senator LUDLAM-That is much appreciated. Thank you.

Air Cdre Meier-Your final question was the contingency plans for trespassers getting into the live fire
exercises in Talisman Sabre. Essentially, if we know there is an unauthorised person into the Commonwealth land at Shoalwater Bay, Bradshaw or any of the other exercise areas, the exercise is stopped. It is then passed over to either the Federal Police or state police to deal with. For Shoalwater Bay, in the vicinity of the training area it is an issue for the Queensland police. Once they cross into Commonwealth land, it is an issue for the Australian Federal Police.

Senator LUDLAM-Your automatic response on learning that somebody has trespassed inside or close to a live fire area is you would stop the clock?

Air Cdre Meier-Yes.
Senator LUDLAM-Thank you for that information. Those are all of my questions.

 

Air Chief Marshal Houston-I would like to read something into the record. It was for Senator Ludlam.
He asked a question about numbers deployed on Exercise Talisman Sabre 09. The total number of people participating in the exercise is 22,500, of which 5,500 are from the Australian Defence Force and just under 17,000 are from the United States.