It’s tit for tat on our army probes

Anthony Albanese’s appointment of a special adviser on Israel’s killing of seven aid workers has opened the door to foreign access to Australia’s own internal military inquiries, experts say.

Former chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin. Picture: Kym Smith

Anthony Albanese’s appointment of a special adviser on Israel’s killing of seven aid workers has opened the door to foreign access to Australia’s own internal military inquiries, experts say.

The Prime Minister said on Monday he expected former Defence chief Mark Binskin to receive “full co-operation” from Israel as Australia’s special adviser on its investigation into the tragedy.

Mr Albanese declined to say where the process could lead, leaving open the prospect of criminal penalties or inter­national legal action against those responsible for killing the World Central Kitchen aid workers, ­including Australian Zomi Frankcom.

“I don’t want to pre-empt Mr Binskin’s findings. That’s why we’ve appointed him to make recommendations to the government,” Mr Albanese told the ABC.

Wollongong University international law professor Greg Rose said the appointment had set an “extraordinary precedent globally” that could come back to bite Australia in the future.

He said international observers were typically present at war crimes trials, but not disciplinary proceedings like that being conducted by Israel. “So if that is to be the maverick approach that Australia adopts, it can expect that its own future discipline reviews of (ADF) conduct in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq will be subjected to demands by the Indonesian, Iraqi and Afghan governments for oversight and special advisers,” Professor Rose said.

ANU international law professor Don Rothwell backed that view, saying other nations could use the precedent to demand similar co-operation by Australia in military probes.

“They would turn around and say to Australia, ‘Well, look, you’re being appointed a special adviser in relation to this incident in Israel. Why shouldn’t we be ­entitled to do the same thing?’ ” Professor Rothwell  said.

He said the government’s decision to appoint a special adviser reflected its wider support for international legal norms.

Former Defence official Peter Jennings said the special adviser’s role had been crafted for “domestic political theatre” and could have long-term implications for Australia. “It’s definitely not a review I would want to do,” he said.

“When Binskin was CDF, there were accidental killings (by the ADF) of civilians in Afghanistan.

“They were all dealt with, shall we say, by internal processes.”

Mr Jennings also highlighted the constrained terms of reference for the role, which require Air Chief Marshal Binskin to have oversight of the Israeli investigation rather than consider the evidence itself.

“The way the inquiry has been structured is almost designed to sort of find fault with Israeli processes. And frankly, who are we to engage with that, based on our own experiences in Afghanistan?” he said.

Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein said the decision to appoint a special adviser was ill-conceived, and “problematically implies Australia would accept reciprocal foreign oversight of Australian military discipline … By appointing a special adviser, our government is signalling that it does not trust the independent investigation of our ally and fellow democracy, Israel, fuelling falsehoods that Israel is not complying with international humanitarian law and even prompting suggestions by some senior figures that it may also be deliberately targeting aid workers and civilians.”

Peter Dutton said Mr Albanese had handed an impossible task to Air Chief Marshal Binskin as he sought to mollify pro-Palestinian figures in the caucus.