I told the House what we agreed. In fairness, I outlined the broad direction of travel. Everybody knows it. The Commission on the Defence Forces was not the Legislature but it gave the broad outline of what would transpire. The Government must have the capacity to draft the Bill. As we know, the pre-legislative scrutiny process allows for very wide discussion. Some of the pre-legislative scrutiny processes have been very lengthy on a number of Bills in various areas because stakeholders have come before committees …

That is an interesting question, which plays to a certain agenda. The hostility to the Department that comes across in some of Senator Craughwell's presentations worries me at times. That is genuinely the case.

The Department represents the civilian wing of the Government. I have met the Chief of Staff separately on occasion. He would be the first to say we need a de facto collaborative approach in real time. I am not clear on the rationale for writing out the Secretary General, whoever that may be at any time, if Senator Craughwell accepts the primacy of the civilian authority.

I did not say the Senator is, but I get a sense of that though.

I thank the Senators for the amendments, which relate to sections 11 and 24. I make the fundamental point that section 11(1A)(a) contains the phrase "while in uniform or otherwise making himself or herself identifiable as a member of the Permanent Defence Force". If a member of the Defence Forces turns up at a school as a parent and does not indicate that he or she happens to be a member, there is nothing stopping that parent from saying he or she thinks there needs to be a school extension or whatever. Nothing in …

I am not sure about political controversy, because one person's mundane political matter is another person's political controversy. It is not clear how that would add clarity. People did listen to Senator McDowell about the issue of independence. It was noted. I am informed that it has been reflected upon and it is believed that the term "political organisation" covers and will be commonly interpreted as covering more than traditional political parties. Many Independents have political organisations as well, includ…

Paragraph G of section 2A of the Defence (Amendment) Bill states that the provisions on the making of public statements or comments are without prejudice to the purpose of an association of representing members. In other words, we have clarified it now, and can go back to the Attorney General prior to going into the other House. Nothing can prevent the members identified there, members of RACO and PDFORRA, from speaking on behalf of their representatives. I have no issue with that.

Yes, paragraph G of proposal in 2A.

To be helpful, on page 9 of the Bill, this is what we are debating at the moment: Section 103 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1): "(1A) Without prejudice to the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990 and any regulations made thereunder, a member of the Permanent Defence Force shall not— The Defence (Amendment) Act 1990 is the Act that established the representative bodies. It is without prejudice to the purpose of an association representing members.

A member of an organisation is in a position to work out its policy positions.

They have annual general meetings.

No, the representative body can represent its members and its advocacy is in respect-----

It does not do a wide canvass on every single issue.

It is necessary to go back to the parent Act that established the representative association. It did not envisage ten associations or splinter groups. It did not envisage that at all. There is a structure for representing the interests of members. That is through the representative association and invariably there are internal consultation processes that RACO and PDFORRA conduct. They get their feedback and they advocate. They advocate very extensively, by the way, in conciliation and arbitration, for example. I kn…

That is the fundamental point that has just been made. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins said in 1924 that those who wear the uniform of the State must serve the State and that principle has stood us in good stead. I have been working in the best interests of the Defence Force members. We have done a lot in the last year and a half and before that in terms of improving matters across the board. In many ways, I believe this is a protection for members of the Defence Forces as well. It gives them clarity. To answer the question th…

Yes, if they are in a room, they put their hand up and say they are members of the Defence Forces and they believe in X, Y, or Z. On the point about Government policy, let us turn it around. Are we really saying that we are inviting members of the Defence Forces to criticise Government policy publicly, left, right and centre? If we do not have a provision like this in the legislation, that is what is going to happen. There are plenty of people out there who would love to infiltrate and create mischief too. We had a…

-----the positivity of all of that is in the context of diversity. Senator Craughwell put it very eloquently when he spoke of the changes that have occurred in terms of diversity within our Defence Forces. I also regret that the Defence Forces were not facilitated to reflect that diversity. The vast majority of our Defence Forces have no truck with those who engage in serious assaults on people. They value what they stand for. It is not necessarily about higher standards but it is the case that people look up to ga…

We are on the way back up.

If members of the Reserve Defence Forces are called out - for example one member of the Reserve Defence Forces is in Lebanon - while they are on that service, for that period, they are not in a position to comment, but off that service they are under their own HR.

The Senator has resigned from them.